To all complaining traders and pirates: adapt to asymmetric gameplay!

[Gogster]

Yes, sorry for the errors. English is not my first language and I tend to get some of the words ("adept" and "adapt") mixed up. I try to proofread most of the stuff I write, but I obviously still make many mistakes. Making errors still is not the same as deliberately just trying to put more emphasis in one's posts buy ending each sentence with a parade of question marks.

Tis his/her style of posting, I don't approve, but then I don't approve of someone being called out for it.

BTT: I don't agree with your second remark, that I use asymmetry to excuse imbalance. That was the whole point of my post: there are so many traders and pirates in different threads as well as in this one that just by the number of complainers on both sides, you can see none of the two sides seems to have such an fundamental advantage - bar the already mentioned FSD cool-down exploit.
Again, I don't say the current encounters are perfect or shouldn't be balanced/tweaked or whatever. What I am saying is just that people seem to expect that both play styles (pirate and trader) would have the same means to win a pirate-trader encounter and then complain if it's not the case.

If a trader escaping is defined as a win, I can see your point. I still believe you're using 'asymmetrical' incorrectly, but that's a minor point. With regards to people complaining, it's good that they have a forum to vent their views, I posted the other night for example when I was being interdicted. I thought it was a pirate but they just opened up as soon as I throttled down. Now they were in a particularly well equipped Asp and beat me down in my (what I thought) was a well equipped Cobra.

In that conversation people have defended the Asp pilot as murder being a viable option, I think the ramifications should be greater.

 

[Arubeto]

if it was "Fair", then fine.....but as it is, a trader ONLY can run.........

Isn't this the whole core of the discussion? What would you consider "fair"? If a trader could fight as well as a pirate? What downside would being a trader have, then? No weakness whatsoever?

 

[MeetYourMaker]

I agree. The things I'm saying right now, do you honestly belive that I dont relise other things that need to happen too?

The whole thing needs balanced, and I think, on your point, that once a pirate always a pirate. Pirates should not be able to change their minds easily once they have trodden the path. I simply think that the first thing that needs to happen BEFORE BALANCING EVERYTHING ELSE, is that traders should relise they make a TON of money, and should stop believeing that nothing bad should ever happen to them.

The Pirate can be jumped on by bounty hunters whilst pirating and lose his ship and equipment (not to mention he is POOR as he cannot make money in his trade).

The Bounty hunter can get owned by a target or pirate and lose his ship/equipment (not to mention that he is poor, but not as poor as the pirate)

Traders can get pirated and lose ship and cargo ... but they are RICH, rich as hell! They do not transport H2O because they can shed tears at their destination.

Traders need to lose cargo once in a while to feed and fatten up the pirates, an in turn, fatten up the bounty hunters.

And just so you guys dont think I am too nasty, I saved a CMD trader from being prated the other day by a CMD pirate, seen him get inticted and dropped in and took on the pirate so he could get out. True story, I am a hero, traders rejoice!

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

No one is going to spend hours on a weekend doing borging Grind to get credits, just to have that time shot away......they may only want credits to buy and Asp to go exploring...but for YOUR fun, they are supposed to play pew pew pew..........

You will NOT GET MORE TARGETS!!!!.......I feel like a hammer hitting a stubborn nail.........again, YOU WILL NOT GET NEW TARGETS!!!...you will just drive people to solo or away from the game completely............if it was "Fair", then fine.....but as it is, a trader ONLY can run.........and now you want to close that off too, so they become a stationary gun target........they wont do it....

For my part? I wont do it either, not even in Solo these days....as Interdictions by NPCs have gone full , so I just bum around in a Viper now...........this "debate" has killed mining, trading, and soon exploring.....for me, I like the combat, its relaxing fun.....others wanting credits, or to grind for bigger ships, solo or walk away.......thats what WILL happen...

Not more targets for you to shoot...instead, no traders in open...........

Then play a relaxing game of farmville or euro space trucker. Let the real men play in this 'cut-throat world'. There will always be traders, just 1 less in you.

Open play means open play, take it or leave it. Solo play is also there, I think it will suit you better.

Traders always 'threaten to leave', stop your threats and actually do it! I dare you. I double dog dare you. Just do it.

I really do not think the leavers will be missed, because as it stands, there is no point in traders playing open only to complain about being pirated as it stands.

 

[mono]

This sounds like familiar territory.

Get a bigger ship and mass lock your quarry, submission problem over. But IMO there's nothing wrong with the system as it is, the pirate should have to work for his loot not request FD nerf everything to make it easier for them. If FD do change the current system it's a mistake on their part.

 

[Arubeto]

Tis his/her style of posting, I don't approve, but then I don't approve of someone being called out for it.

Well, I only mentioned it in a "btw":

And btw., the value of your posts does not grow proportionally to the number of periods and question marks you use.

If you don't agree with his particular style of posting, why are you against pointing that out?

But really now, BTT:

If a trader escaping is defined as a win, I can see your point. I still believe you're using 'asymmetrical' incorrectly, but that's a minor point. With regards to people complaining, it's good that they have a forum to vent their views, I posted the other night for example when I was being interdicted. I thought it was a pirate but they just opened up as soon as I throttled down. Now they were in a particularly well equipped Asp and beat me down in my (what I thought) was a well equipped Cobra.

In that conversation people have defended the Asp pilot as murder being a viable option, I think the ramifications should be greater.

I am indeed of the opinion that an escape is what a trader would (or should, at least) consider a "win" in an encounter with a pirate. That's what makes it asymmetrical: both parties have different goals, different means to achieve those goals. In a FPS deathmatch everyone has the same goal of killing his opponents, which would qualify as symmetrical game play, IMO. (what is the correct English spelling? "game play"? "gameplay"? "game-play"?)

And I do think those few commanders that are interested in serious RP will probably give the pirates their due (i.e. drop some canisters of cargo) but apart from those a pirate will have to stick to NPC targets to make enough money for a living. Which is the reason I think the "submit-to-interdiction-then-FSD-out-without-cooldown" is indeed an exploit and will have to be adjusted.

 

[Arubeto]

Only thing they are going to do is make a little harder for traders to escape but that's about it.

Which would be fine, IMHO. Presumably the only step we need.

 

[Jordan Cobalt]

This sounds like familiar territory.

Get a bigger ship and mass lock your quarry, submission problem over. But IMO there's nothing wrong with the system as it is, the pirate should have to work for his loot not request FD nerf everything to make it easier for them. If FD do change the current system it's a mistake on their part.

Having a bigger ship won't change the fact that the mass lock system is messed up. A cobra can't mass lock a type 6, but an asp can mass lock a type 9. A python can't mass lock an anaconda. It needs a reworking, and getting a bigger ship is only a work around to that issue.

 

[DarkWalker]

In the originals, you got into a fight you either fought or died pretty much

And here is the difference; dying was easy, a common occurrence in the originals, but the player only lost a few minutes over a death because he could just load the previous save and try again as if nothing had happened. Very different from what happens in ED, where a death can push the player back days or weeks.

Which is what I expect, and want, from games: something where victory isn't assured, where I have to bring my A game to win and even then there's a good chance I will fail, but where if I fail I can just shrug it off and try again. The originals were like this, ED isn't; in ED, the game for the most part is boringly easy, but death punches you in the gut. Heck, even Dark Souls, famous for being a harsh game, has a much lighter death penalty than ED.

I guess this game, due to the similar death penalty, might be going the EVE way when it comes to PvP, where an interested player has to often search for hours before finding any PvP action.

 

[Yokai]

No one is going to spend hours on a weekend doing borging Grind to get credits, just to have that time shot away......they may only want credits to buy and Asp to go exploring...but for YOUR fun, they are supposed to play pew pew pew..........

You will NOT GET MORE TARGETS!!!!.......I feel like a hammer hitting a stubborn nail.........again, YOU WILL NOT GET NEW TARGETS!!!...you will just drive people to solo or away from the game completely............if it was "Fair", then fine.....but as it is, a trader ONLY can run.........and now you want to close that off too, so they become a stationary gun target........they wont do it....

For my part? I wont do it either, not even in Solo these days....as Interdictions by NPCs have gone full , so I just bum around in a Viper now...........this "debate" has killed mining, trading, and soon exploring.....for me, I like the combat, its relaxing fun.....others wanting credits, or to grind for bigger ships, solo or walk away.......thats what WILL happen...

Not more targets for you to shoot...instead, no traders in open...........

This. 100 percent agreement. The "food chain" argument is fundamentally flawed. There are countless other ways that FD could encourage and entice player interaction and consensual PvP.

 

[tagos]

Isn't this the whole core of the discussion? What would you consider "fair"? If a trader could fight as well as a pirate? What downside would being a trader have, then? No weakness whatsoever?

I would consider it 'fair' that a trader ship could be configured so as to be able to put up a good fight. If a pirate in a custom fighter like a Viper can't defeat an armed trader then he's not a good enough pilot compared to his opponent.

 

[Arubeto]

I would consider it 'fair' that a trader ship could be configured so as to be able to put up a good fight. If a pirate in a custom fighter like a Viper can't defeat an armed trader then he's not a good enough pilot compared to his opponent.

Well, yes, I was referring to the pirate and trading ships, not the commanders piloting them. So, what I meant was that if you have two players with similar skills, shouldn't the pirate in his supposedly dedicated fighter win in a dogfight most of times? Sim Maker made it sound as if it was unfair that his trading vessel wasn't as good a fighter as some pirate Eagle/Viper/whatever the pirate is using and didn't have any choice but running away.

 

[tagos]

FD will never get rid of this system, they know that pirates that cry about this are a small group of players who suck at pirating and don't know how to solve problems.

Quite. It's the same in every PvP type of game. Unfortunately it's the ones who don't go off and get better who drag things down. If FD increased to cooldown to 30 seconds the board would still be full of people who'd rather keep complaining than learn how to target sub systems and shoot straight with rail guns and cannons.

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

Well, yes, I was referring to the pirate and trading ships, not the commanders piloting them. So, what I meant was that if you have two players with similar skills, shouldn't the pirate in his supposedly dedicated fighter win in a dogfight most of times? Sim Maker made it sound as if it was unfair that his trading vessel wasn't as good a fighter as some pirate Eagle/Viper/whatever the pirate is using and didn't have any choice but running away.

They would. No one has a problem with that. That's the situation at the moment but if people want to stop traders being able to spool up the FSD (and the current situation is too lenient) then there has to be another potential 'out'. A longer cooldown combined with greater survivability for the trader would enable a skilled pilot to survive long enough.

I want pirates to earn their reward, not just claim it because they are in a fighter. And I want traders to be able to earn their escape. May the best man win.

 

[Arubeto]

I want pirates to earn their reward, not just claim it because they are in a fighter. And I want traders to be able to earn their escape. May the best man win.

Totally agree. What this all comes down to in the end is the need of balancing the pirate / trader encounters (by increasing the FSD cooldown after submission at least a little bit, for example), not some fundamental flaw in the game mechanic. Which - in turn - I see as a confirmation of my initial assessment that apart from this balancing, the game mechanic works as intended and players should now what to expect from it!

 

[Gogster]

Totally agree. What this all comes down to in the end is the need of balancing the pirate / trader encounters (by increasing the FSD cooldown after submission at least a little bit, for example), not some fundamental flaw in the game mechanic. Which - in turn - I see as a confirmation of my initial assessment that apart from this balancing, the game mechanic works as intended and players should now what to expect from it!

If you increase the FSD cool down after a "throttled-back" interdiction, you remove the ability for the trader to effect an escape, thus debasing your "asymmetrical" argument.

 

[MaraJade]

The Pirate can be jumped on by bounty hunters whilst pirating and lose his ship and equipment (not to mention he is POOR as he cannot make money in his trade).

The Bounty hunter can get owned by a target or pirate and lose his ship/equipment (not to mention that he is poor, but not as poor as the pirate)

Traders can get pirated and lose ship and cargo ... but they are RICH, rich as hell! They do not transport H2O because they can shed tears at their destination.

Traders need to lose cargo once in a while to feed and fatten up the pirates, an in turn, fatten up the bounty hunters.

Ha ha ha, RICH! I wish, that's why most traders are in T-6's ? You forget that there are many "pirates" out there that are only interested in the destruction of other commanders. Losing a few T-6's or T-7's drain your account pretty fast. Not to mention the larger ships. Thinking that all traders are rich is just silly.

The constant putting down of traders also needs to stop. We are not roll playing here, we are people who enjoy a game and don't need to be made fun of for a particular play style.

Not everyone is a hard core PVP player.

 

[Sim Maker]

Totally agree. What this all comes down to in the end is the need of balancing the pirate / trader encounters (by increasing the FSD cooldown after submission at least a little bit, for example), not some fundamental flaw in the game mechanic. Which - in turn - I see as a confirmation of my initial assessment that apart from this balancing, the game mechanic works as intended and players should now what to expect from it!

Here is the problem.....it is a game, a program....code......or in other words, it is dumb as a rock..........everything you do has to be hard coded, and I will out think any computer going....even being a bit dim myself, I will outthink something that is predictable....so.....
....
Lets say FD nerf the traders boost so they can get away only 50% of the time........someone, somewhere will find another "exploit"........maybe, let interdiction happen, count to 10, deploy chaff and ECM, run......and then they can get away 100% of the time, again.....so you will then come back here and once again ask that it be nerfed, and you will keep doing it, until they are just stationary targets for you to blow up.......but, by then there will be no more traders in open........
..

FD have created a good and proper Catch-22 for themselves..........Pirates want things to Pirate, but can anyone show me a video game where people are willing to play defenceless Victims?...........who would want to do that?.....I read the forums, lots of people dropping their traders and just getting in to fighters...........Mining is dead, no one cares.......Exploreers cant sell their data properly....and run the risk of losing a months work due to insane NPCs and PvPers attacking everything in space......including empty ships..................which may be fun for them, but is ruining another players game...........
...
I dont play games to get frustrated, or to "Roll Play" being a Victim........so, like others, I have found the fun things in the game I DO enjoy doing, that dont leave me angry or resentful at the end of the day....Blowing stuff up at RES, USS etc...........nice and relaxing, and all I need from a game........its just meant to be a bit of fun right?.....................sorry, you are asking people to be frustrated and your victims for YOUR fun..........not going to happen. WHich is good for Solo players, as maybe FD will put some effort in to the core...........rather than try and balance out this unwinable Catch-22.....
....
PIRACY MAY BE DYING AS A CAREER........but the changes they are asking for are killing every other "career" in the game........except killing pirates.........catch-22 death spiral......lol.
...
It is sad really, for me anyway.....when I first loaded up Elite, I was amazed at what I saw and what I THOUGHT the possibillities were......but, its just turning in to another generic FPS 1v1 death match shooter......but with Battle Ships vs Tug Boats............yawns.........

 

[Arubeto]

If you increase the FSD cool down after a "throttled-back" interdiction, you remove the ability for the trader to effect an escape, thus debasing your "asymmetrical" argument.

Sorry to say this so bluntly, but this time you didn't get the point: the important part was that I suggested to increase the FSD cooldown "a little bit", but still not as much as after a failed evasion. So for example:

- Trader tries to evade interdiction, fails => FSD cooldown of 45 seconds.

- Trader submits to interdiction => FSD cooldown of 15 - 30 seconds (up from currently no CD at all, subject to balancing)

So the trader would still have an advantage if he submitted to interdiction, but at the same time this would give the pirate a little more time to do some meaningful damage to a trader that can't hold out until this (shorter) FSD CD is over.

 

[Arubeto]

Here is the problem.....it is a game, a program....code......or in other words, it is dumb as a rock..........everything you do has to be hard coded, and I will out think any computer going....even being a bit dim myself, I will outthink something that is predictable....so.....
....
Lets say FD nerf the traders boost so they can get away only 50% of the time........someone, somewhere will find another "exploit"........maybe, let interdiction happen, count to 10, deploy chaff and ECM, run......and then they can get away 100% of the time, again.....so you will then come back here and once again ask that it be nerfed, and you will keep doing it, until they are just stationary targets for you to blow up.......but, by then there will be no more traders in open........
..

FD have created a good and proper Catch-22 for themselves..........Pirates want things to Pirate, but can anyone show me a video game where people are willing to play defenceless Victims?...........who would want to do that?.....I read the forums, lots of people dropping their traders and just getting in to fighters...........Mining is dead, no one cares.......Exploreers cant sell their data properly....and run the risk of losing a months work due to insane NPCs and PvPers attacking everything in space......including empty ships..................which may be fun for them, but is ruining another players game...........
...
I dont play games to get frustrated, or to "Roll Play" being a Victim........so, like others, I have found the fun things in the game I DO enjoy doing, that dont leave me angry or resentful at the end of the day....Blowing stuff up at RES, USS etc...........nice and relaxing, and all I need from a game........its just meant to be a bit of fun right?.....................sorry, you are asking people to be frustrated and your victims for YOUR fun..........not going to happen. WHich is good for Solo players, as maybe FD will put some effort in to the core...........rather than try and balance out this unwinable Catch-22.....
....
PIRACY MAY BE DYING AS A CAREER........but the changes they are asking for are killing every other "career" in the game........except killing pirates.........catch-22 death spiral......lol.
...
It is sad really, for me anyway.....when I first loaded up Elite, I was amazed at what I saw and what I THOUGHT the possibillities were......but, its just turning in to another generic FPS 1v1 death match shooter......but with Battle Ships vs Tug Boats............yawns.........

I feel like I have to get something straight here: I am not a pirate. You make it sound like I want to have easier targets. Not at all. My main point is that the system as it is mainly working. There seem to be some pirates who feel cheated by the way traders can avoid FSD cooldowns by submitting to interdictions, but I am not one of them (pirates). I merely feel sympathetic for them.

 

[Gogster]

Sorry to say this so bluntly, but this time you didn't get the point: the important part was that I suggested to increase the FSD cooldown "a little bit", but still not as much as after a failed evasion. So for example:

- Trader tries to evade interdiction, fails => FSD cooldown of 45 seconds.

- Trader submits to interdiction => FSD cooldown of 15 - 30 seconds (up from currently no CD at all, subject to balancing)

So the trader would still have an advantage if he submitted to interdiction, but at the same time this would give the pirate a little more time to do some meaningful damage to a trader that can't hold out until this (shorter) FSD CD is over.

What would that achieve?

So the problem is they can't do a bit of damage before the trader escapes? Seems arbitrary.

 

[Arubeto]

What would that achieve?

So the problem is they can't do a bit of damage before the trader escapes? Seems arbitrary.

I would see it as a try balance what many people seem to perceive as unbalanced: slightly increase the chance of pirates to do meaningful damage to tradings ships, but at the same leave the traders some time advantage when submitting to interdiction rather than losing to it.