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

[Commander Silex]

Buy a high class interdictor. Boom!

To my mind that ought only really to increase the effective range at which you can interdict.

 

[Sim Maker]

"Why can't we at least try what they have in mind before we cry foul??"
...
Because if they keep ballsing this up, there wont be an Elite to play..........does'nt it even register with you how upset people are about this, in the countless threads, not to mention the "I quit, goodbye" threads we see several times a day...........and you want to make it MORE frustrating and grindy for new players.....

....
WHy should'nt an empty starter trader, with fast drives and thrusters be able to run away from a lumbering fat Anaconda....and why would the Anaconda want to even stop a speeding empty trader........? Unless just to griefe them........
...

People use the boost because they do not want to be a victim..............if you take the boost away, they will find another way to not be a victim........either Solo, or if that stays NPC crazy, they will just get a gun ship, or quit the game..........FD need to come up with a sollution that does not make defenceless victims out of new players.........brought on by Old players, who raced with cheats and broken code to the Billion dollar kit (Yeah, "Poor" Pirates)....and want some tin cans to shoot at........

...
No one is going to play the tin can............how many people want to play the Zombie in the countless survivial games? ......

 

[Roybe]

To my mind that ought only really to increase the effective range at which you can interdict.

At better than 2.5 million credits it better do more than that.

 

[kapitankev]

There are some emergent behaviours with the current mechanisms too which are a problem. These are often difficult to predict, but nevertheless affect the levels of fractiousness.

Consider:

1. when interdicted by an NPC pirate in an overmatched vessel, the simplest and easiest way to escape isn't to do anything clever, but to submit, boost FSD away. When I was using a hauler I only took hull damage once through my D class shields this way. So anyone who plays for a bit adopts this as standard practise. (Ok interdictions are up now on then, but the point can still be made).

2. when inderdicted by an NPC psycho who fires straight away, Boost, FSD is even more the right tactic.

3. when interdicted by a PC psycho you still want to do this.

4. when interdicted by a PC pirate you're conditioned to do this, so you do.

5. when you are a PC pirate and interdict a PC trader, you pretty much have to fire straight off since by the time you have typed 'stand and deliver' they're already boosting away. Unless you communicate before you interdict, or interdict them again, you lose a lot of time by trying to communicate, which makes your chance of getting anything lower.

6. when interdicted by a PC in my defenseless hauler, I don't know if they are a pirate or a psycho. So I run. So they both fire on me, convincing me that all PC interdicters are psychos. So I always run.

...

So you get a self reinforcing patterns of behaviour where PC interdictions nearly always cause the interdictor to fire without talking, and the interdicted to nearly always flee at max speed.

Now NPC pirates don't have the problem of trying to steer and type comms at the same time, so you nearly always get some sort of canned blurb from them. What would be useful is a way for PC pirates to be more easily able to send pro-forma comms by hotkey to their target. So if you could set up a hotkey to send a specific piece of text to the current locked target, and thus lose less time typing rather than piloting, it might ameliorate some of the emergent patterns above.

Another approach (though possibly this would be less popular) is that after coming out of FSD both parties power systems are sufficiently scrambled that neither can steer, fire, boost etc for a couple of seconds. A long enough pause in which there wouldn't be much to do except comms. I can see problems with this approach if there are more than 2 parties, or someone else joins that instance bubble at some time delay.

This......we need hotkeys for custom messages and to be able to drop a preset set of barrels at a key press.

 

[JosiahD]

The problem with the pirate role is not so much the role per se, but that FD have failed to implement it all. There are lots of interconnected features in the 'grand design' that give, as far as we can tell from just looking at them on paper, a coherent whole. But FD have implemented only bits of it effectively at random. Thus, for example, many traders run away to solo because FD have not implemented difficult AI and difficulty by system governance, and solo is therefore easy mode. Similarly, there are plans for 'proper' piracy with a functioning 'stand and deliver' mechanisms, and much greater penalties for murder than for 'piracy done properly'. But those consequences do not exist, you cannot do 'stand and deliver' in a way that the game knows you have done it, and there is a broken mechanism where you can evade all NPC interdictions, and many PC ones, by submitting and then boost, boost, boost, jump. With all the holes in the fabric of what FD intended, nothing works properly, and it is pretty futile to discuss what should be balanced/nerfed/buffed, because without all the bits, we don;t know what the balance is.

I'm inclined to agree.


Mind you, I would also add that a pirate who in the process targets players exclusively and CHOOSES to ignore 80-90% of their targets - ie the NPCs (who make up the bulk of the pilot population in-game) - isn't exactly making it any easier on themselves re profitability.

 

[Dogoncrook]

Systems now have security levels. If you can't win in combat stick to safe areas. So your cheap source of gold or whatever is now probably in a dangerous system. You can either fight your way there or stick to safe systems with less problems. Same with PvP. If you won't do that your gonna die a lot. You cannot balance interdictions because then functionally there is no difference between high an low security at all. You can no longer go where you are not wanted without putting up a fight. I suggest you get over it and take the advice that's been given to you. This isn't going to change go read the ddf's if you want to know why.

And frankly the entire premise of this thread is dishonest you know that systems have security levels now but you act like you have never heard of it, and people patiently explained how to beat unwinnable interdictions through avoidance 99% of the time yet here you are acting all helpless and perplexed.

 

[smsKONG]

"Why can't we at least try what they have in mind before we cry foul??"
...
Because if they keep ballsing this up, there wont be an Elite to play..........does'nt it even register with you how upset people are about this, in the countless threads, not to mention the "I quit, goodbye" threads we see several times a day...........and you want to make it MORE frustrating and grindy for new players.....

....
WHy should'nt an empty starter trader, with fast drives and thrusters be able to run away from a lumbering fat Anaconda....and why would the Anaconda want to even stop a speeding empty trader........? Unless just to griefe them........
...

People use the boost because they do not want to be a victim..............if you take the boost away, they will find another way to not be a victim........either Solo, or if that stays NPC crazy, they will just get a gun ship, or quit the game..........FD need to come up with a sollution that does not make defenceless victims out of new players.........brought on by Old players, who raced with cheats and broken code to the Billion dollar kit (Yeah, "Poor" Pirates)....and want some tin cans to shoot at........

...
No one is going to play the tin can............how many people want to play the Zombie in the countless survivial games? ......

Really, well do you not realise how upset many of us 'old cheats' are with the constant dumbing down of the game to make it so that skill and intelligence aren't required...

I could point out the flaws in your rant but that would be a waste of my time and energy. I am curious however as to how lengthening the SC cooldown equates to increasing the grind and frustration!? Also who mentioned removing boost from the 'victims' arsenal!?

Also I must admit I've never had an issue escaping from anaconda interdictions as they just can't outrun any of the smaller ships - so lengthening SC cooldown really shouldn't make things harder in this case -you'll just be further from your pursuer by the time you jump...

Maybe if new players tried learning the game instead of demanding it be made easier for them or rage quitting then we'd all be a bit happier!

 

[Firebeard]

I think there is an issue, if the FSD cooldown is lengthened - made consistent - then I have a reason to try and fight an interdiction.

Currently I know I can boost away and get going again before any damage so just submit straight away.

Having a longer FSD period allows for comms too which is good. My type 6 is awful in combat but I can survive a few hits.

Polite pirates - of which I've met several - make the game more characterful

 

[AnnuverScotinExile]

I'm inclined to agree.


Mind you, I would also add that a pirate who in the process targets players exclusively and CHOOSES to ignore 80-90% of their targets - ie the NPCs (who make up the bulk of the pilot population in-game) - isn't exactly making it any easier on themselves re profitability.

That is true, too. But if FD had implemented the 'transponder' concept, rather than forcing all PCs to fly with a 'flashing blue light', then those pirates would not be able to selectively target so many PCs, anyway. Yet more of the 'incomplete bits of the jigsaw'.

My biggest long term concern is not the balance, because FD can get there. It is whether there will be anyone left playing the game when that balance point arrives.

 

[Lobstris]

Whilst I don't agree with the general thrust of Yokai's arguments (in this or the 101 thread - personally I think you need to look at the 'food chain' or ecosystem as a whole - you cannot limit things to small sections of an argument, and claim other people who don't agree with you are 'off topic'), the standout problem for me regarding interdiction as mentioned here is the case where there is no warning that an NPC interdiction is going to occur. If this was because of advanced interdictee sensor modelling vs. NPC interdictor ship, emissions, heat and stealth characteristics, fine, but at present it just looks like cheap spawning of AI, rather than any decent modelling.

 

[smsKONG]

That is true, too. But if FD had implemented the 'transponder' concept, rather than forcing all PCs to fly with a 'flashing blue light', then those pirates would not be able to selectively target so many PCs, anyway. Yet more of the 'incomplete bits of the jigsaw'.

My biggest long term concern is not the balance, because FD can get there. It is whether there will be anyone left playing the game when that balance point arrives.

My favourite was not to be identified as a player unless you are scanned - that way you can't just pick on people unless you are willing to get bored looking for them.
The transponder flag always seemed a bit flaky to me!
But regardless of which was used - it would have reduced the amount of perceived greifing I believe..

 

[Roybe]

Whilst I don't agree with the general thrust of Yokai's arguments (in this or the 101 thread - personally I think you need to look at the 'food chain' or ecosystem as a whole - you cannot limit things to small sections of an argument, and claim other people who don't agree with you are 'off topic'), the standout problem for me regarding interdiction as mentioned here is the case where there is no warning that an NPC interdiction is going to occur. If this was because of advanced interdictee sensor modelling vs. NPC interdictor ship, emissions, heat and stealth characteristics, fine, but at present it just looks like cheap spawning of AI, rather than any decent modelling.

I've been wondering about some of these complaints of 'not seeing someone'. I found that in a lot of the cases, things/people/ships were around, they were just outside sensor range. Still think the NPC stuff is buggy, which doesn't help the situation, but a lot of the lack of information probably comes around from people not getting better sensors.

 

[Commander Silex]

At better than 2.5 million credits it better do more than that.

Fair point. I'll be honest and say I've not really researched interdictors enough to know precisely what you do an don't get for your money at present, but I don't think higher grade=harder to evade is the best way to balance them. Other benefits could include reducing the amount of damage to the interdictor to the point of it being negligible with the best ones. Range would also make a big difference to the potential revenue a pirate could pull in. If they're able to select targets a lot further away and are also good at the interdiction sub-game, their potential hauls per hour go up a great deal without necessarily making the interdiction itself a foregone conclusion.

In any case that is an entirely different topic. ^^

 

[Roybe]

My favourite was not to be identified as a player unless you are scanned - that way you can't just pick on people unless you are willing to get bored looking for them.
The transponder flag always seemed a bit flaky to me!
But regardless of which was used - it would have reduced the amount of perceived greifing I believe..

I agree this would cut down on the ability to track down PC's. But then why bother making a multiplayer game? Just have a single player game. Part of the attraction of multiplayer games is KNOWING there are other players around.

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

Fair point. I'll be honest and say I've not really researched interdictors enough to know precisely what you do an don't get for your money at present, but I don't think higher grade=harder to evade is the best way to balance them. Other benefits could include reducing the amount of damage to the interdictor to the point of it being negligible with the best ones. Range would also make a big difference to the potential revenue a pirate could pull in. If they're able to select targets a lot further away and are also good at the interdiction sub-game, their potential hauls per hour go up a great deal without necessarily making the interdiction itself a foregone conclusion.

In any case that is an entirely different topic. ^^

I agree! I believe the only difference is distance..which means you could be interdicted by a person from so far away that neither of you are picked up on each others radars...which would lead each to think they are in an empty instance! Hmmm...that sounds familiar!

 

[Drake Shadow]

I have to agree with CMDR "PufnStuf": Trading needs an edge and interdictions are it. Right now I can evade almost all NPC interdictions. And the one I didn't, was because I was half a klik from the station and had the throttle at zero and a finger on the "Disengage FS" button - boy was that a surprise! (so YES OP, a little warning or fly buzzing my backside in FS would have been nice). Even more surprising is when I hit FS and POOF! I was outtathere!
I was admittedly disappointed. No gut dropping "Oh $h!&" with maneuvering and boosting and "Do I throw my weapons out or just boost?"...nope. I was back in FS before I could figure out what happened (remember I was just about to exit FS)
--
My Opinion: The FS cooldown after Interdiction needs to be back to what it was. Traders with no shields and no weapons and no defenses should not complain when they become space chaff. If you want to live on the edge and squeeze an extra 8 tonnes of cargo in between your cheeks, then you can white knuckle it from station-to-station in this wild space west and pray you survive. Me, I bring a shield and a gun. I've left a lot of eyebrow less pirates behind me.

 

[AtheosisX]

Where are these proposed interdiction changes? I can't find them.

 

[Commander Silex]

I agree! I believe the only difference is distance..which means you could be interdicted by a person from so far away that neither of you are picked up on each others radars...which would lead each to think they are in an empty instance! Hmmm...that sounds familiar!

Might be onto something there....

 

[Lobstris]

I've been wondering about some of these complaints of 'not seeing someone'. I found that in a lot of the cases, things/people/ships were around, they were just outside sensor range. Still think the NPC stuff is buggy, which doesn't help the situation, but a lot of the lack of information probably comes around from people not getting better sensors.

I don't think it helps that IIRC the sensor range in FSD is a 'dynamic' one based on a 40 second travel time horizon distance around your ship (i.e. dependent on your speed). The problem is further compounded by the scanner being logarithmic (even if set to linear in normal space) and cluttered by planets around the edges. I'd far rather a linear scanner with a fixed range in 'x' light seconds that could be adjusted via rotary (Hey Frontier! Don't think I've forgotten the 'good idea, we'll look into that' about 6 months ago now! ).
.
Slightly off topic, I love the amount of dev. feedback we are now getting regarding Star Citizen's sensor, emissions and weapon modelling. (Another hint Frontier! How about some clear statements as to how or if sensor quality affects detection ranges in FSD?)

 

[Yokai]

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

Actually, my "101" thread was scoped only to the question of interdiction mechanics. This thread is more broad in scope. Both principles (and my arguments for them) apply equally to Solo/Group/Open modes. Personally, I don't think the "food chain" argument works in Open mode either. Pirate roleplay could be accomplished in a satisfying manner without a "food chain" core concept.

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(?)

Good question. I can't answer that until more details are know about the 1.2 Wings. As far as I can tell, Wings will affect only Open/Group play, and will _not_ enablelone players to hire NPC wingmen. Sandro quote up a few posts is what makes me think this. That said, give individual players the option to hire even halfway competent AI wingmen for "protection and escort", and a smart player could probably find tactics to effectively use them as a meatshield long enough to get away. Even if that incurs a certain fixed cost (hiring escorts) that traders don't deal with now, I have no problem with that because it's _balanced_ in that every person who wants to earn money at the higher rates that trading currently enables is faced with the same equal choices, decisions, and costs. It would be an effective nerf to income across the board, but because it's "across the board" it's essentially fair. (Sorry @AnnuverScotInExile ^.^)

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?

It's true: ArcheAge's risk-reward balance and mechanics are _not_ exactly the same as for ED today. However, ED does still have a fundamental COST imbalance. Like so:

Assertion A:
Average rares trading income for Cobras and T6/Asps run roughly 1.6 million cr/hour (no point in normalized rare income to cr/ton/hour)
Average bulk commodity trading for T6/Asps runs at the rate of 12,000 cr/ton/hour. That's 1.2 million cr/hour for the T6 and 1.44 milliion cr/hour for the Asp.
Bulk commodity trading can go as high as 1.6 million cr/hour for the T6 and 1.92 cr/hour for the Asp.
(Where do these numbers come from? See orange link in sig block below.)

Assertion B:
Every player can bootstrap themselves into a T6 or Asp in pretty short order, all things considered. Not much effort nor person-hours involved at all. The real grind sets in after you hit T6/Asp levels. I did this in a week or two. I'm a "casual" player.

Assertion C:
There is _nothing_ that prevents a "pirate" player from _also_ having a money-making trading ship on the side. There is _nothing_ that prevents a "pirate" player from swapping to Solo/Group mode to grind money in their trading ship on the side without interruption. It's a basic min-max tactic and I'll lay money on the table right now that says if we could data-mine the activity of all those oh-so-hardcore "pirates" complaining about solo mode even being an option, we'd find that a large percentage, perhaps a majority percentage, of all such "pirates" are actually doing trading in Solo, in at least a Cobra, T6, or Asp, simply because "that's just smart gameplay, and I'm smart".

So if you put Assertions A, B, and C together, that means the majority of players are capable of, and probably are, making between 1.2 million per hour and 1.9 million per hour, or more, as needed to fund the maintenance and repair of their "pirate" ships. We'll use the midpoint as an "average income rate" for your typical pirate running around in an A-class Viper or A-class Cobra (most Asp players are probably using it for 120-ton cargo hauling, not for pirating): lets round down to an even 1.5 million cr/hour income rate. By contrast, the income rate for T7 and larger ships lies clearly in commodity trading, even at an average cash flow of 12,000 cr/ton/hour. So down below where I quote income rates for T7 and higher, its based on cargo capacity after making room for "best" A-class shields, times 12,000 cr/ton/hour.

Now, let's look at the comparative costs of losing some typical pirate ships versus trader ships. We'll go with the worst case: total loss. Blown up in the fight. Anything less than a total loss is still a comparable and proportional difference between the two ships, since repair costs scale with the total cost of the ship. Note that "trading" ships also have to factor in the cost of rebuying lost cargo. Since the only goods worth trading tend to cost 5,000 per unit or more, let's use a baseline 5,000/ton cost for the cargo rebuy figures.

Pirate: A-class Viper: 1,500,000 cr/hour income divided by 137K insurance rebuy = 5 minutes of trading activity
Pirate: A-class Cobra: 1,500,000 cr/hour income divided by 360K insurance rebuy = 14 minutes of trading activity
Trader: A-class Asp: 1,500,000 cr/hour income divided by 1459K insurance rebuy PLUS (96*5000) cargo rebuy = 77 minutes of trading activity
Trader: A-class T7: 168 tons > 2,016,000 cr/hour income divided by 2296K insurance rebuy PLUS (168*5000) cargo rebuy = 93 minutes of trading activity
Trader: A-class Clipper: 184 tons > 2,208,000 cr/hour income divided by 4099K insurance rebuy PLUS (184*5000) cargo rebuy = 136 minutes of trading activity
Trader: A-class Python: 228 tons > 2,736,000 cr/hour income divided by 7977K insurance rebuy PLUS (228*5000) cargo rebuy = 199 minutes of trading activity

... and I'm going to stop here because it's a lot of number crunching and typing. You can see the slope clearly with these datapoints, and the slope gets even steeper as you move into T9 and Anaconda range.

As you can see, the COST is much higher for the typical "trader" prey versus the "pirate" predator. The typical pirate will need only 5 to 14 minutes of trading activity to recoup a _total loss_. Meanwhile, the typical ships that traders are flying will range from 77 minutes to 199 minutes to recoup a total loss. And the spread is even worse for T9s and Anacondas.

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.

I'm not sure I'll ever satisfy you, @Roybe. I'll just point out that your argument doesn't "protect" traders in Open. It removes them from Open. The traders who choose to play in Open are not protected in any way by the existence of Solo and Group modes.

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.

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.

A. All above numbers and assertions are based on traders running strong shield, A-class gear, and generally being configured as "traders with teeth".

B. Wings might very likely affect only Open play and only be usable by players who have time to herd cats with other players. Solo pilots might not be able to hire NPC wingmen. Details are unclear, but this is clearly what Sandro's statement (quoted higher in the thread) suggests about Wings. In other words, the 1.2 wings feature might do nothing at all for Solo mode.

C. If it were cyclical, the traders would somehow make money off of the Bounty Hunters. Just saying... ^.^ What you're describing as cyclical is still essentially a "food chain" with BH at the very tip top of the pyramid.

 

[Robbeh]

This really needed a second thread...

This is not a design issue at all. The design is sound, go read the DDF if you need it clarified.

This is a development issue. FD have released a game that was nowhere near ready and every profession consists of the most barebone mechanics that they figured they could get away with. They are now adding in features piecemeal and the core design of the game is being thrown further out of whack and becoming deformed by these interacting mechanics that are seemingly being developed independently at massively varying rates of progression.

Piracy shouldn't really even exist in high security systems such a Sol and Lave - The mechanics should be ensuring that anyone trying this would be broke and effectively exiled/hunted out of the factions space in short order. Profit margins in these systems should be much lower in order to reflect the increased amount of trading traffic in these systems due to its security levels.
On the other hand taking an unarmed/lightly armed trade ship into an anarchy/low security system should be near suicidal, but if you pull it off the potential profits should be much higher in comparison to the safer/more high traffic routes.

Secondly traders should not be able to "run to solo" as solo is meant to be as much as a challenge as open. This was the main argument for why it would be okay to allow character progression to carry across the two modes in the first place!

These are just two examples of underdeveloped mechanics that are the root cause of this perceived issue and there are many others. If the original designs for these systems had been implemented then you would likely not even encounter hostile interdictions outside of the low security regions and an unarmed/unprepared trader would already know to avoid these kind of routes!