Design 102 - A cautionary tale about "food chain" design

[Wedgetail]

or fails to deliver basic functionalities/consequences of choice etc...

Pretty much this.

Implementing some form of medium/long term consequence for piracy and murder would deter a lot of the weekend warriors, if they are unable to just attack someone and be clean two minutes later after a 6500 spacebuck slap on the wrist - something on the order of restricting access to anarchy/low sec stations for refuelling/repairing/selling the loot until such time as they redeem themselves - and redemption in this case takes TIME, not cash. (Perhaps similar to rep missions in their time taken and slooooow impact on regaining rep )

This would have the effect of massively reducing the number of interdictions for the 'wannaplayopenbutdon'twannapvp' crowd, without significantly impacting the "career" pirates

I would just like to add and remind everybody that it was expected from the atart that most 'interactions' would be against NPCs. PvP was never, ever meant to be a central part of the game. PvP is meant to be RARE. But that isn't what we have. And it is because we have too many players playing PvP style that the game is skewed against the PC trader, making their chances of survining an attack by a PvP armed ship much less likely than the game intended. The game intended much more in the way of attacks by NPCs and players working together against the NPC/Simulation. The game now is just degenerating into a PvP shooter.

Not sure it was ever expected that pvp would not be a central part of the game. Most of the design compromises that were made seemed deliberately to cater for it! Unfortunately, the system that the compromises were made for hasn't been brought to fruition. Unfortunately for the "it's only an alpha/beta/gamma/release 1.0/patch1.1/just wait till patch 1.2/just wait for patch X.Y" guys, the lack of these features means that, lacking the alternatives, a proportion of players will turn to whatever avenues ARE available to them - which at the moment includes no holds barred pvp

 

[Titus Balls]

I would just like to add and remind everybody that it was expected from the atart that most 'interactions' would be against NPCs. PvP was never, ever meant to be a central part of the game. PvP is meant to be RARE. But that isn't what we have. And it is because we have too many players playing PvP style that the game is skewed against the PC trader, making their chances of survining an attack by a PvP armed ship much less likely than the game intended. The game intended much more in the way of attacks by NPCs and players working together against the NPC/Simulation. The game now is just degenerating into a PvP shooter.

For months I've been saying that beyond the beta, when the price dropped to a more consumer friendly level - the more casual space sim fan would come to the game and that's what they want, along with a lot of other things I won't mention on this thread but we all know of.

I came in at PB and full expected this, but behind me are all the KS and Alpha backers who I feel might have been a little disillusioned that this game would be a nice Sunday drive in the country.

The warnings have been blaring for quite a while.

 

[spacejumbofudge]

Yokai, you cover several different arguments for cost/earnign time and damage taken in a suitable ship and I don't find them convincing.

Your 12% damage vs and Asp seems very odd, you should be able to blow that out of the sky, perhaps you're not fitting decent shields, cells or weapons. My worry here is that the argument still appears to be 'my poorly equipped ship is still no match for pirates'. I don't think this should be a universe where traders can go around with a poor setup.

Even if you do end up taking some hull damage and even if it does cost a couple of hundred thousand, that's still peanuts to a large trading ship, maybe the profits from one 5 minute trip.

If you're saying the costs of being completely blow up are painful, then yes they are and yes they should be, but for that to happen you have to have

-failed the interdiction mini game.
-failed to defend yourself, possibly by not having a good setup
-failed to escape

I personally equip my ship with 2xc2 beam and 4xc1 MC because I need cheap ammo and enough to last if I go to a Nav/RES or conflict zone. Why don't you just fit racks and racks of missiles and a decent beam, or some rail guns or something. You don't need to worry about ammo or ammo cost as you're only using it defensively.

My experience from being interdicted and from Nav point fighting, is that's it's currently way to easy to just bug out. I lose many bounties after a long fight as it takes an anaconda or python seconds to decide to leave and there's nothing I can do to stop it. Incidentally, I'm loving the extra interdictions in 1.1 as it makes trading/travel less boring.

What I wonder is what your bank balance looks like day to day? Sounds like you're loaded already if you can just try out a pimped Python. I bet after a session trading it's gone up millions, does for me in my Asp. If that's all true, doesn't sound to me like things aren't balanced in your favour already.

 

[Mr_Blastman]

Don't like it, trader? Don't trade in a defenseless ship. Bring some guns... in a capable craft. That means of course sacrificing income per hour because of less cargo... but, what do you really want? You can't have it all.

Oh, and this first post totally neglects (TL;DR) the time pirates spend waiting for prey. In North American hours it is slim pickins (because North Americans play stupid games apparently) and you might go an entire night of three or four hours finding only a few people to interdict (and most, if not all) net you nothing.

Piracy is low profits, high risk. Trading is high profits, low risk. There's a problem with that for sure.

 

[Rubbernuke]

So if Wings in 1.2 sorts out wingmen etc will that offset these percieved risks for vulnerable traders? It seems a lot of the arguments stem from a 'single ship' view.

 

[natte hond]

but behind me are all the KS and Alpha backers who I feel might have been a little disillusioned that this game would be a nice Sunday drive in the country.

erm think you are seriously mistaken here.
its to bad I cant let you have a peak at the Alpha forum Im sure you would then never say such things.

 

[Yokai]

So if Wings in 1.2 sorts out wingmen etc will that offset these percieved risks for vulnerable traders? It seems a lot of the arguments stem from a 'single ship' view.

Perhaps this will be of interest:

A tiny bit more information on player wings:

It’s the ability to mechanically group up with a small number of other players to share rewards and risk. So we are looking at:

* enhanced matchmaking for wingmen
* enhanced/clear feedback for who and where wingmen are
* shared information within the wing
* shared bounties and mission rewards
* on-going mission support for wing gameplay

To be absolutely clear, this is not anything to do with NPC wingmen (though they do sound similar).

So, with the very little info we have about wings, it seems this will be a feature available only in Open play. Which is cool but doesn't change the landscape for Solo/Group in regard to the _other_ proposed changes by Sandro for interdiction mechanics, which will result in "traders" being stuck in the cage for longer periods with the "pirates".

Again, I have zero problem with interdictions, even frequent ones, as long as the mechanics are balanced.

 

[spacejumbofudge]

So if Wings in 1.2 sorts out wingmen etc will that offset these percieved risks for vulnerable traders? It seems a lot of the arguments stem from a 'single ship' view.

Only if traders can affordably hire NPC wingmen, otherwise wings is going to make piracy a much bigger problem for traders.

 

[Demonseed]

Once again, why I could care less about the MMO aspect of the game. It only takes 1 out of 100 players to completely poison a gaming experience for me so if it has an "open world" or "MMO" style mode of play, I'm completely uninterested. Been there, done that, put up with the griefers and whiners, never again. I don't mind hand-picking who I play with and the group-play mode in Elite Dangerous is great in my opinion; but also Elite has always been a single-player "me vs the galaxy" style game ever since I played and fell in love with the first one back in the early 80's. Why ruin that with griefers who sit inside starports spamming dumbfire missiles at incoming ships for no other reason than they can get away with it? I really have no interest in playing with random people anymore because even though 99 of them may be great to play with, there will always be that 1 to ruin it. Besides, without the ability to have armed escorts with trading ships and linked-jumping and formation flying, ED doesn't have the basic systems to allow for immersive team-play.

 

[spacejumbofudge]

Once again, why I could care less about the MMO aspect of the game. It only takes 1 out of 100 players to completely poison a gaming experience for me so if it has an "open world" or "MMO" style mode of play, I'm completely uninterested. Been there, done that, put up with the griefers and whiners, never again. I don't mind hand-picking who I play with and the group-play mode in Elite Dangerous is great in my opinion; but also Elite has always been a single-player "me vs the galaxy" style game ever since I played and fell in love with the first one back in the early 80's. Why ruin that with griefers who sit inside starports spamming dumbfire missiles at incoming ships for no other reason than they can get away with it? I really have no interest in playing with random people anymore because even though 99 of them may be great to play with, there will always be that 1 to ruin it. Besides, without the ability to have armed escorts with trading ships and linked-jumping and formation flying, ED doesn't have the basic systems to allow for immersive team-play.

Yokai seems to be mainly talking about NPC interdictions, not sure the whole boring MMO/griefers angle is relevent.

 

[AnnuverScotinExile]

Let's get one thing absolutely clear before I continue: these players are right. I agree with them. There should indeed be a fair chance to catch one's prey. Got that? I agree.

Trouble is, 'fair' is subjective. When ever a politician uses that F-word, I know without even looking that I will not think it is fair at all. I suspect my definition of 'fair' here diverges from yours.

 

[Sim Maker]

As many of stated in the "other" thread.....

The game is a system of prey and predator, that's pretty obvious.

When you CHOOSE to play a trader, and make 1mc in 2 hours, you also take the risk of being the prey for the pirate or just some murderous ******* that is killing just because he can. (yes, it has been stated that murdering just for the sake of murdering is a way to play the game). Just as playing a BH the prey is those that are wanted. Whether or not you want to believe there is a food chain, to put it simply there is. Trader ships are not going to be balanced for combat, just as combat ships aren't going to be balanced for trading, otherwise you would have 1 ship and just play that one 1 ship the entire time.

Let me say this though, I'm all for a good spirited discussion. However, changing the game to be some carebear pve environment is not what this game was made to be. These huge wall's text to change the core of the game is really disturbing to some. Some of us (traders included) signed up to play the game, based on the ruthlessness of the game. All I'm saying here is that if you don't like the ruthlessness of the game, then you playing the wrong game. I for one, am not going to continue to post on either thread, once again, talking to a brick wall.

Say your piece then walk out in a huff? Ok.......

....

Ruthless games are fine......just dont expect ANYONE to play the Victim.........instead, expect everyone to get gunned up...............no more traders to interdict.........
....

And if a trader has stripped out their ship, for speed, should they not be able to run away pretty easy? it will be the slow lumbering traders that should get busted.........

....

And how did these oh so "poor pirates" afford A Grade Anacondas?

 

[Rubbernuke]

Only if traders can affordably hire NPC wingmen, otherwise wings is going to make piracy a much bigger problem for traders.

So if this is the case, the trader takes the risk of that route or picks a safer one? In beta I flew a type 9 with turreted everything and I got interdicted a couple of times. The smaller ships were less than a nuisance, the only time I felt in danger was with larger plasma cannon armed vessels.

Yokai > so if you could hire NPC wingmen, would that solve or allieviate the problem? Right now I can see NPC traders with NPC wingmen at navpoints so I imagine it can't be far off(?)

 

[Ralph Vargr]

The game now is just degenerating into a PvP shooter.

Indeed. And, as the NPC's are buffed for open they will also be buffed for solo. That leaves little choice but to be a combat oriented player, since it is likely you will be facing many, many hostile NPC encounters.

 

[Indy Original]

1. Player A spends 2 hours or more to prepare a trade pack in expectation of making X amount of money.
2. Player B shoots and kills Player A and makes that 2 hours worth of money for themselves. In one act of "piracy" that lasts 5 minutes at most.

...What's still fundamentally imbalanced is the core "food chain" notion whereby Player A spends 2 hours in hope of X gain, while Player B spends 5 minutes to achieve the same gain while also totally denying the trader any gain for their 2 hours of effort.


..."Predatory" competitive games where one side wins big and the other side loses big...


...Because of points 2 and 3, the player community tends to become vitrolic and divisive. Much bad blood is created on both sides. The players asking for better balance are trolled and flamed as "carebears" and "losers", and the players who enjoy the predator role and the "challenge" of the inherent imbalances are trolled and flamed as "jerks" and worse.


...Please, tell me where, exactly, in this quote, is there ANY implication that:

* "Food chain" design is the core of the game
* Players who choose to roleplay a pirate are guaranteed the same income stream as players who chose to trade
* Players who choose to roleplay a pirate should have a mechanical and/or gear-based advantage over traders they prey upon
* Players who choose to roleplay a trader or explorer should not be able to successfully avoid pirates or to have the tools needed to succesfully run away from pirates.


...I am arguing only that in an interaction between a "pirate" and a "trader", NEITHER SIDE SHOULD HAVE AN INHERENT ADVANTAGE OVER THE OTHER. Balanced and equal gear options MUST exist in such exchanges. Whether or not a "trader" can successfully avoid or run from pirates should be 100% skill-based.

If what you say about Archeage is true, I completely understand why it failed as a game - after all, if one player spends 2 hours working to achieve a goal, and another player only spends 5 minutes, it is grossly unfair for the pirate to be able to profit every bit as much as the trader would have. But Elite Dangerous is not a game where 'one side wins big and the other side loses big' - because the pirate doesn't 'win big' at all - he wins far less than the trader, and in fact it is possible for the trader to end up still making a profit even after the pirate has stolen some of his cargo. Players who choose to roleplay as a pirate are NOT guaranteed 'the same income stream' as players who choose to trade, they get far less, and players who choose to roleplay as traders or explorers CAN successfully avoid pirates - by staying in safer systems, or by playing the interdiction minigame and winning, or by upgrading their ship with better shields and thrusters and shield cells and chaff. There are sometimes glitches whereby NPC can interdict you out of nowhere, or the Escape Vector disappears, but in those cases it is the glitches that need to be fixed, it's not a problem with interdictions themselves.

If Elite was like Archeage, if traders had to work much harder than pirates to get the same reward that the pirates could easily get, then it would be terrible... but as it is, the traders stand to get a bigger reward than the pirates do, so it's not unfair at all. If interdictions were balanced as you suggest, if traders and pirates were equally matched in terms of firepower etc, THEN the game would be unfair, because the pirates would be working equally hard for less reward - and you would have to make piracy just as profitable as trading in order to make it fair again.

If you want interdictions to be balanced, pirates have to be able to make millions of credits per hour, just like traders can. As it is, traders can make far, far more than pirates, so pirates have to have an advantage in dogfights to compensate.

And as for the community becoming vitriolic and divisive, surely that only happened in Archeage because it was using such an unfair system. Elite is not unfair, so... there shouldn't be a problem?

 

[Roybe]

Op, this game was designed specifically with this food chain in mind. If not, epxlain why FDEV protected traders so MUCH? There are 2 distinct protected areas where they can never be preyed upon by others, except NPC's...and they complain about that fact continuously. If there are no traders, PC or NPC, how do pirates survive? Without pirates, how does the bounty hunters survive? There has to be traders to fulfill the need of pirates. Otherwise, just RNG all NPC's to drop cargo and bounties, put in no friendly fire and make this a PvE only game.

 

[Commander Silex]

Interdiction itself should be the aspect of pvp piracy that has the most level playing field. Perhaps it is supposed to at the moment, but my perception is that it is slanted somehow and some ships have an easier time interdicting over others. Once that in itself is resolved then you're really down to facilitating a place where relative gear, trader defenses and thruster grade, and interdictor weaponry and thruster grades combine with player skill to create a playing field that might not be level, but in most cases isn't completely one sided.

I don't think cases where the trader has elected to sacriface all potential life saving options should count in this balancing theory. This would be a bit like driving without a seatbelt on a motorway renowned for it's accident hotspots. Unwise to the point of suicidal.

I also don't think cases where the interdictor vastly overpowers the victim should generally be included in this balancing consideration beyond a reasonable point. There should however be reasonable and effective systems in place making the life of those persistantly gibbing small vessels in civilised space very uncomfortable. This ought to be to the point of making it a very big risk for them to set foot there for any length of time. Beyond that ensuring no single affordable weapon system allows for cheap 'one shot' kills against the average easy target CMDR we'd be heading in the right direction. A lot of these systems aren't yet adjusted to a satisfactory level, but they are either in place or in the process of being implemented. It remains to be seen if they work out.

None of this takes into consideration Wings, which is also going to change the landscape.

As for the food chain aspect:

I see it as more of a triangle.

Trader/Miner (Yeah let's at least include them hehe) Makes the larger part of the credits

Pirates drawn to credits prey on Traders/Miners

Bounty hunters and Mercenaries feed on pirates. Bounty hunters operate on their own initiative whilst mercenaries are employed by Traders, or assist them due to a common bond.

Rather than a chain, it is intended to be cyclical.

 

[Roybe]

Interdiction itself should be the aspect of pvp piracy that has the most level playing field. Perhaps it is supposed to at the moment, but my perception is that it is slanted somehow and some ships have an easier time interdicting over others. Once that in itself is resolved then you're really down to facilitating a place where relative gear, trader defenses and thruster grade, and interdictor weaponry and thruster grades combine with player skill to create a playing field that might not be level, but in most cases isn't completely one sided.

I don't think cases where the trader has elected to sacriface all potential life saving options should count in this balancing theory. This would be a bit like driving without a seatbelt on a motorway renowned for it's accident hotspots. Unwise to the point of suicidal.

I also don't think cases where the interdictor vastly overpowers the victim should generally be included in this balancing consideration beyond a reasonable point. There should however be reasonable and effective systems in place making the life of those persistantly gibbing small vessels in civilised space very uncomfortable. This ought to be to the point of making it a very big risk for them to set foot there for any length of time. Beyond that ensuring no single affordable weapon system allows for cheap 'one shot' kills against the average easy target CMDR we'd be heading in the right direction. A lot of these systems aren't yet adjusted to a satisfactory level, but they are either in place or in the process of being implemented. It remains to be seen if they work out.

None of this takes into consideration Wings, which is also going to change the landscape.

As for the food chain aspect:

I see it as more of a triangle.

Trader/Miner (Yeah let's at least include them hehe) Makes the larger part of the credits

Pirates drawn to credits prey on Traders/Miners

Bounty hunters and Mercenaries feed on pirates. Bounty hunters operate on their own initiative whilst mercenaries are employed by Traders, or assist them due to a common bond.

Rather than a chain, it is intended to be cyclical.

Buy a high class interdictor. Boom!

 

[smsKONG]

A fair point in theory. I'll restate a few facts from that other 101 thread that depict the reality today:

I've playtested a Python "trader with teeth" configuration against NPC pirate interdictors extensively since 1.1 dropped. 4 turrets up top, one fixed beam on the bottom for taking out the pirate's shield as fast as possible when they get in front of me. Throttle + down-thruster tactics to keep the pirate in range of all 4 top-side turrents with 95% uptime (only lost when they boost to get away from the turrets), and ME out of range of their gimbals and fixed guns. Observations:

* NPC Cobras and Vipers of all stripes will die to this configuration before I take any hull damage.
* NPC Asps and larger will typically inflict about 12% hull damage at least before they die.
* NPC Pythons (yes, in Solo I get interdicted by NPC Pythons) will hurt me bad. I've won some and taken huge hull damage, and I've run from some. Remember, I'm not geared for combat and dogfighting and jousting and using long-range fixed weapons. I'm a "trader with teeth"

12% hull damage for me is 200,000 cr. It will up to 250,000 cr when I finally add my A7 powerplant.

A typical player can be in T6 or Asp in relatively no time. And therefore earning at a typical average rate of 100 or 120 tons times 12,000 cr/ton/hour. Do the math. How much time does a pirate in an A-classed Viper or Cobra need to spend in their T6/Asp to recoup the insurance loss on their ship, versus an A-classed Python pilot who loses not only the ship but roughly 2 million cr in cargo too? I'll summarize: 5-6 for the Pirate. 162 minutes for the Python "trader with teeth". Not even remotely balanced risk/reward.

One other observation: I know how to fly well outside the plane of the ecliptic, how to roll as needed to cluster the radar clutter into one narrow band (or spread things out and away from my immediate vicinity). I know how to watch for blips that appear to be tracking me and trying to get behind me for an interdiction. I also know to steer wide of USSes that appear near my flight path Here's the deal: right now in 1.1, in Solo mode, MANY NPC interdictions occur with ZERO visible foreshadowing. You are tooling along with clear space all around you and BAM! interdiction attempt. Others report this too. I am not alone.

I've flown a python; I never took damage from an interdiction fight once (interdicted by pythons and anacondas too) - you can't balance a skill based game to be fair for everyone as some people are better at fighting than others.
It would also help if you set your ship up properly for combat and not just for fly swatting...

The current interdiction mechanics leave me able to escape in every single ship I've tried too - so everything except dropship, anaconda and type 9 tested on this front.
So currently, for me, the game is far too easy.

Something needs to be done about this; FD intend to do something about this.
Why can't we at least try what they have in mind before we cry foul??

I mean - you are protesting against changes that we don't have full details about and haven't tested..
You say it must be balanced - how can it be balanced unless it is tried and tested?

Let them make their changes before we judge them please.
Plus stop speaking for all traders - there are plenty of us who want to be in the cage longer!

 

[Roybe]

Now, to answer the OP's question....Is there a better way? Depends on what you consider better. I believe you rolled out Guild Wars 2 as a shining example of how a Multiplayer game can be made to allow all playstyles to be happy within a single game. In some parts I can agree with this. I played both games since beta's of both. Only left GW2 to come here.

Splitting the community into PvE, and PvP. It's been done here. Why is there so much dissension to this choice here, and not in GW2? Because, it is a food chain/cycle system....and people do not like to be bothered when they are playing the way they want....even in solo.

Now, should the game be fixed to prevent these interactions? No. If these actions were eliminated, I do not feel it would be E: D. It would truly become truckers in space. The original games were about fighting your way to a trade station for the reward. Cleaning out your pants on arrival, with a new ship or your cargo intact. That's how it should be, and why I fly as a trader. Carrying 2 or 3 million credit cargoes should give you the shakes when you land and sell..having arrived in once piece should have a sense of relief and you should question your sanity occasionally for being a trader. This is non existent within this game. For those that say the originals were different than what I described, take off your rose colored glasses and go fly the originals. No matter your choices, you had a target on your back every time you flew. Every flight was dangerous, every flight could see you dead.


So what needs to occur to make this game shine? *Player expectations need to change. FDEV could throw away PvP tomorrow, for me, if they would just make the game dangerous to fly in. I do not want a high success rate of trading...to me amassing credits is boring. I want to feel that I might never return to my ship or home or whatever, every time I fly. I want to see people complaining about the AI being to hard, to interrupting, to crazy. That means people actually will have to think to play. Not run around in paper planes with hundreds of tons of cargo, but actually have to decide that they will forego shields and have a real risk of death/loss.

*On players expectations a new, thread started today about NPC's 'griefing' explorers...folks need to get their expectations in line with what a 'bloodthirsty' galaxy means.

https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php?t=115722&p=1796392&viewfull=1#post1796392

Anyways, we can agree to disagree. My only point in this discussion is that I do not feel this game has yet to live up to Mr. Brabens expectations of a 'blood thirsty galaxy'. I believe when it does, many currently playing will not like the way they will have to play.