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

[Roybe]

Quote Originally Posted by Roybe View Post
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.

A five second cool down on a submitted interdiction means the trader can boost once, wait another 2 seconds, then hit the supercruise button and leave. A pirate hasn't even gotten their aim set in most PC's cases. The mini game itself is a protection, as most players can beat that 90% of the time. I don't bother because i do not need to.

Actually, we agree that there are inherent issues in a food chain type game. Unfortunately, this game is based upon that style of game. It cannot be undone without a complete rework of the game itself, changing it from part of the Elite franchise into a modern co-op MMO. When everyone accepts this fact, and adjusts their expectations to it, these forums will be much quieter.

 

[Titus Balls]

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.

Ding Ding Ding! We have a winner.

My only disagreement is that piracy in Sol/Lave be impossible. No, but it should be bloomin' hard! It should absolutely be allowed but players must also be willing to face the consequences that come with it.

 

[Chummy62]

Wings will reinforce why I play solo. If I can't win against one pirate, what makes people believe I stand a chance against a group of pirates. I am not going to be your victim, nor am I going to be extorted by mercenaries to fly protection for me. What is to say the pirates do not run as mercenaries on the side, vice versa. I want Frontier Elite IV not Eve in Frontier Space. Thank God for Solo so I can have some fun time playing Elite. You do realize that this works in my favor because the game will die. Assuming Frontier keeps their promise and releases the server backup, this expedites the time when I can run my own server effectively having an "Offline" Version of Elite.

 

[Yokai]

And refresh my memory please: where can we find the DDF to review it?

 

[Titus Balls]

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! ).

FYI You can bind it to an axis now - I now use RTY4 on my X55 for this.

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

And refresh my memory please: where can we find the DDF to review it?

Sneakily hidden now, but not from google

https://forums.frontier.co.uk/forumdisplay.php?f=36

 

[Roybe]

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!

Can we have this engraved in stone and gilded as the first post within the forums!

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

Wings will reinforce why I play solo. If I can't win against one pirate, what makes people believe I stand a chance against a group of pirates. I am not going to be your victim, nor am I going to be extorted by mercenaries to fly protection for me. What is to say the pirates do not run as mercenaries on the side, vice versa. I want Frontier Elite IV not Eve in Frontier Space. Thank God for Solo so I can have some fun time playing Elite. You do realize that this works in my favor because the game will die. Assuming Frontier keeps their promise and releases the server backup, this expedites the time when I can run my own server effectively having an "Offline" Version of Elite.

This game is filled with so many people like this, I'm pretty sure it will happen sooner rather than later. Keep up the good work guys! Offline mode is just around the corner.

 

[Commander Silex]

Wings will reinforce why I play solo. If I can't win against one pirate, what makes people believe I stand a chance against a group of pirates. I am not going to be your victim, nor am I going to be extorted by mercenaries to fly protection for me. What is to say the pirates do not run as mercenaries on the side, vice versa. I want Frontier Elite IV not Eve in Frontier Space. Thank God for Solo so I can have some fun time playing Elite. You do realize that this works in my favor because the game will die. Assuming Frontier keeps their promise and releases the server backup, this expedites the time when I can run my own server effectively having an "Offline" Version of Elite.

Whilst your concerns are quite valid regarding wings, how you respond to it is really your choice and one you can follow up on. This is the wonderful thing about Elite: Dangerous, in my opinion. However it is a little bit arrogant to suggest your gameplay desires represent the sum total of every trader who will be playing the game. For every player who feels like you there is just as likely to be those that enjoy the prospect of having the chance to group up and socialise with other players for a common end, and not exclusively one that involves being the aggressor in these situations. One CMDR's perceived 'extortion by mercs' is another CMDR's fair recompense for the assist to his or her in game friends.

 

[Jack Schitt]

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.

Wow. I had no idea FD turned off the NPC traders on the North American servers. I'd ticket that.

 

[hookandsling]

This really needed a second thread...

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.

This.

Two things to fix and it all starts to work.

1. Pirating should be a one way ticket to a festival of NPC death in High Security systems.
2. Profits should be fabulous in Anarchy systems.

Oh and everything grades perfectly in-between. Sounds simple. Bet it's not.
I hope they get there.

 

[Darth Ender]

This game is filled with so many people like this, I'm pretty sure it will happen sooner rather than later. Keep up the good work guys! Offline mode is just around the corner.

The door can't wait to hit them fast enough. The sooner they're not wasting time for players in Open who actually want to play in Open the better. The loss will not be mourned.

I voted for wings and multiplayer because I hope multiplayer ends up being in-game recognized groups so players loyalties and associations can be identified immediately. This would make mounting defenses against hostile player groups and players possible as well as mounting offenses and creating alliances. I dont care if they end up being in-game factions that players adopt for their own or our own player created factions vying for influence among existing factions. That's what I want to see come about.

The players who dont want to or can't embrace the full experience of Open dont have to play in Open, but I believe they shouldn't be allowed to move between the modes with the same character, they should have an open character and non-open character. That is a broken mechanic in my opinion that creates a different difficulty for the different modes than intended.

 

[Flavourless]

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.

So much wrong here.
The problem is that all the systems are the same trade-wise. There are no special commodities or extortionate prices to be found in low security systems where the pirates should hang out. There is thus no incentive to go there.
So the pirates are in the secure systems (because the traders are there), where they should be dead too quickly to bother anyone.
And Interdictions are un-winnable because most of them occur at main star or station with no warning. There is no smart route flying that can avoid them.
And traders are forced to submit due to the non-working minigame. I have lost too much money from damage occurring not because someone outflew me, but because the coding failed to display the escape vector. How hard could it be to get right?

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!

So much right here. The problems come from the implementation of the game not the idea behind it.

 

[Mohrgan]

Ok, we're out of our first semester, and heading into number two. Let's get to the lesson then. Op, you have to stop trying to apply your personal misconceptions to E: D. What the Dev's want to do is balance the engagement between the 'pirate' and the 'trader'. The design goal is not to favor one or the other, but let the interdiction mini game settle question of who's going to have to face a pirate in combat space..
.
Right now, because of a design flaw, traders have the upper hand, they enjoy a too easy of a way to deny the pirate their chance. This is causing the Dev's to review the mechanics. Nothing has changed because FD doesn't want to just land on the pirates side of the equation. They want to find the 'balance'. Take some solace in that. Do you have any idea exactly what FD intend to do as a fix? I'm guessing 'not', so we should just wait to see the new plan before saying the sky is falling.
.
As to the food-chain, I don't believe I can come up with a quote to settle this, like I did with the 'exploit' issue a few threads ago, but based on the reading I've done here on the forums, I believe it to be their intention. I believe they intend for the pirates to prey on the traders, and be preyed upon buy the bounty hunters. By observation, and the Dev's comments here and there.
.
That quote, from E's main page, offers piracy as a carrier path. Just as is doesn't directly mention a food chain, it certainly doesn't rule one out. You are trying too hard to justify your wish for a safer galaxy, than the cutthroat one you are faced with. FD believes that the 'risk' traders 'run' while earning all of those credits precisely 'pirates'. FD has gone as far as saying that plain old murder is a valid form of game play, piracy is written right into the first introductory paragraphs. You are going to have to concede these things, it's all out there.

 

[Jordan Cobalt]

Snip .

Are you seriously using a rare traders income as a pirates income because "everyone can do it"?!!!

That logic kinda makes my head hurt.

 

[kapitankev]

Wings will reinforce why I play solo. If I can't win against one pirate, what makes people believe I stand a chance against a group of pirates. I am not going to be your victim, nor am I going to be extorted by mercenaries to fly protection for me. What is to say the pirates do not run as mercenaries on the side, vice versa. I want Frontier Elite IV not Eve in Frontier Space. Thank God for Solo so I can have some fun time playing Elite. You do realize that this works in my favor because the game will die. Assuming Frontier keeps their promise and releases the server backup, this expedites the time when I can run my own server effectively having an "Offline" Version of Elite.

How boring....do you not think it would be fun to fly as part of a convoy? In the original elite you regularly got jumped by up to 6 pirates at once, there's nothing new going on here. I think you bought the wrong game.

Back to the topic though, yes, many parts of this game are incomplete but change is coming. However I'm pretty sure one thing that's not going to change is the requirement for players to cooperate...whether that's for community goals,pirating each other or running convoys.

If there was one thing they could change to lessen the burden on a trader in an expensive ship? Lower the prices.....they are stupidly high especially for someone like me with a family and an hour or so a day to play. Can't see myself ever getting an anaconda. I'd like to see some stats on how often different hip types do actually die.

......and the game wont die, I for one will play as a trader in open, I have no problem being the target and I'm sure I'm not alone.

 

[Joe Spivey]

Ok, we're out of our first semester, and heading into number two. Let's get to the lesson then. Op, you have to stop trying to apply your personal misconceptions to E: D. What the Dev's want to do is balance the engagement between the 'pirate' and the 'trader'. The design goal is not to favor one or the other, but let the interdiction mini game settle question of who's going to have to face a pirate in combat space..
.
Right now, because of a design flaw, traders have the upper hand, they enjoy a too easy of a way to deny the pirate their chance. This is causing the Dev's to review the mechanics. Nothing has changed because FD doesn't want to just land on the pirates side of the equation. They want to find the 'balance'. Take some solace in that. Do you have any idea exactly what FD intend to do as a fix? I'm guessing 'not', so we should just wait to see the new plan before saying the sky is falling.
.
As to the food-chain, I don't believe I can come up with a quote to settle this, like I did with the 'exploit' issue a few threads ago, but based on the reading I've done here on the forums, I believe it to be their intention. I believe they intend for the pirates to prey on the traders, and be preyed upon buy the bounty hunters. By observation, and the Dev's comments here and there.
.
That quote, from E's main page, offers piracy as a carrier path. Just as is doesn't directly mention a food chain, it certainly doesn't rule one out. You are trying too hard to justify your wish for a safer galaxy, than the cutthroat one you are faced with. FD believes that the 'risk' traders 'run' while earning all of those credits precisely 'pirates'. FD has gone as far as saying that plain old murder is a valid form of game play, piracy is written right into the first introductory paragraphs. You are going to have to concede these things, it's all out there.

What are we talking here because it makes a difference. Are we talking:

PC pirates against NPC traders?
NPC pirates against PC traders?
PC Pirates against PC traders?

All options are viable but it is just the first two which the ethos of the game is designed around. Player co-operation against the background simulation... anyone remember that? It is the third option that is causing the problems because of the unusual amount of players who thing that the game actually revolves around PvP combat. Oh yes, and please stop misusing the term 'interaction' when you actually mean combat. Call it what it is.

 

[Roybe]

What are we talking here because it makes a difference. Are we talking:

PC pirates against NPC traders?
NPC pirates against PC traders?
PC Pirates against PC traders?

All options are viable but it is just the first two which the ethos of the game is designed around. Player co-operation against the background simulation... anyone remember that? It is the third option that is causing the problems because of the unusual amount of players who thing that the game actually revolves around PvP combat. Oh yes, and please stop misusing the term 'interaction' when you actually mean combat. Call it what it is.

Check my sig?!? Still a problematic issue, with overly long cooldowns, bugs, and more on hands dev control than a lot of people like. However, it has gotten a lot better and many things are being looked at.

There's no difference between any of the three. The only one people get a bee in their bonnet about is the last one. It is new to the franchise, but, by design, a valid play choice. Why do people refuse to see this?

 

[Hadron-Higgs-Boson]

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!

this, pretty much.

 

[Yokai]

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.

Stuff (all quite good)

And refresh my memory please: where can we find the DDF to review it?

Sneakily hidden now, but not from google

https://forums.frontier.co.uk/forumdisplay.php?f=36

Much obliged, Titus.

On a quick skim, I see lots of design intent from a year ago that isn't in the game yet. In no particular order I'll quote a few things from the DDF that seem to have direct bearing on some of the "pirate" debate (and this thread). Highlighting mine for emphasis (things that don't work that way today).

• A Pilot’s Federation Bounty is only removed if claimed by a bounty hunter or redeemed by the perpetrator
  • Redemption can only occur after a set significant time period has elapsed (eg 1 calendar week) and the perpetrator makes financial restitution of a significant multiplier of the bounty (eg 10x) to the Pilot’s Federation

And this one from Sandro is in a thread squarely about "Yarr! Piracy!". I'll note that Sandro makes only two posts in the thread, and neither of his posts hints at ANY notion of piracy being the core design thesis of the game (that's a slightly different notion than an "integral mechanic"), nor of any notion of "food chain" mechanics where the traders are by design supposed to support the pirates, who are in turn supposed to support the bounty hunters. I'll let Sandro's exact words speak for themselves

“And so they sailed off into the ledgers of history!” Pirates in Elite: Dangerous

Yarr, me shipmates, shiver me timbers, it be time to discuss the life of a pirate!

The path of the pirate in Elite: Dangerous is a veritable powder magazine; this adversarial role sails very close to the griefing winds. However, it’s integral to the game, and potentially a great source of interesting adventures if we get it right.

Key Characteristics of the Pirate

• They make profit by selling cargo taken surrendered to them or taken by force
• They choose their targets without regard of any authority and so lead the dangerous life of an outlaw
• They don't necessarily want to destroy their prey, they want to relieve it of its cargo as efficiently as possible
• They naturally need some way of carrying cargo, either personally or as part of a pirate fleet
• They tend to favour all-rounder ships, as they have many different needs: speed to run down prey and elude the authorities, firepower to intimidate or subdue their prey and cargo space to carry the ill-gotten plunder

Being a Skilled Pirate

• Like traders, the best pirates are intimately aware of trade routes and current events that might affect the value of trade goods
  • This knowledge extends into knowing how to trade on stolen goods through fences, or get cargo histories "wiped"
• Pirates are skilled in technical combat - a destroyed target means less booty and more interest from the law
  • The ability to wage non-lethal combat and effective psychological warfare are key skills for the pirate
• Knowing when to cut your losses and run is a very useful skill; as an outlaw, straight forward tasks such as ship repairs and maintenance can be more difficult/expensive than for the law abiding spacefarer
• Managing threat effectively is a vital skill for the pirate that wants his/her beard/hair-do to grow long and white - the best pirates minimise bounties and are constantly roving to spread the interest in them as thin as possible

So as you can see, we think there's a lot of hard work and interesting decisions to be dealt with for the would be dread pirate, but what do YOU think? What awesome possibilities for pirates are we missing, what dangerous conundrums should they be struggling with (and what dangerous conundrums are we going to be struggling with by having this adversarial role in multiplayer), and what specific procedures and equipment would you like to see?​

And this later post by Sandro in the same thread

The piracy reputation would have negative consequences in some situations (the more lawful folk are probably going to be somewhat resentful), but would have positive effects as well.

For example, there will be many outlaw factions and groups that appreciate a pirate player; they know the player has standards that they can work with, whilst having a certain disregard for "laws".

It's important to point out that we don't see high/low reputations as being a "good" or "bad" thing. They just help generate different situations, events and NPC responses.

 

[AtheosisX]

Ok, we're out of our first semester, and heading into number two. Let's get to the lesson then. Op, you have to stop trying to apply your personal misconceptions to E: D. What the Dev's want to do is balance the engagement between the 'pirate' and the 'trader'. The design goal is not to favor one or the other, but let the interdiction mini game settle question of who's going to have to face a pirate in combat space..
.
Right now, because of a design flaw, traders have the upper hand, they enjoy a too easy of a way to deny the pirate their chance. This is causing the Dev's to review the mechanics. Nothing has changed because FD doesn't want to just land on the pirates side of the equation. They want to find the 'balance'. Take some solace in that. Do you have any idea exactly what FD intend to do as a fix? I'm guessing 'not', so we should just wait to see the new plan before saying the sky is falling.
.
As to the food-chain, I don't believe I can come up with a quote to settle this, like I did with the 'exploit' issue a few threads ago, but based on the reading I've done here on the forums, I believe it to be their intention. I believe they intend for the pirates to prey on the traders, and be preyed upon buy the bounty hunters. By observation, and the Dev's comments here and there.
.
That quote, from E's main page, offers piracy as a carrier path. Just as is doesn't directly mention a food chain, it certainly doesn't rule one out. You are trying too hard to justify your wish for a safer galaxy, than the cutthroat one you are faced with. FD believes that the 'risk' traders 'run' while earning all of those credits precisely 'pirates'. FD has gone as far as saying that plain old murder is a valid form of game play, piracy is written right into the first introductory paragraphs. You are going to have to concede these things, it's all out there.

There is no way to balance piracy vs traders in this game as it currently exists, and with wings it will only get worse. When one person can fly a Viper and easily destroy a ship worth many, many times as much there is no way to balance that. If you make it easy to escape as it is currently there is little risk to the trader and none to the pirate. If you make it hard to escape then there is insane risk to the trader and again none to the pirate. If they make these kinds of changes traders will either only fly combat ships for trading thereby relegating dedicated trading ships to the trash heap, move to solo so that pirates no longer have any targets other than NPCs, or simply quit, which I'm pretty sure is happening in massive quantities anyway.

 

[bassman]

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.

The flaw in that argument is that you are only considering the actual conflict time as time invested by the pirate who most likely has spent some considerable time trying to find a suitable mark and even then only a proportion of piracy attempt with yield anything. IOW only a small minority of a pirates time is "productive" whereas a traders ratio is maybe 10% finding a good route and then 90% milking it.