Player pirates - aren't they supposed to demand loot?

TruffleSnout

T
Guys, let's not turn this into open vs solo otherwise it'll get merged into threadnaught.

My suggestion for fixing the legit pirate vs space slug issue: a mechanic to help push traders into dropping loot rather than running, and to push interdictors to take loot rather than open fire.

From a pirate's perspective:
  • If the trader submits, he is marked non hostile, and if you shoot him under those circumstances, you get a fine equal to the insurance + cargo value of the ship you're shooting at. I realize fines are weak-sauce, but there's no other mechanism at the moment to suck credits away from players.
  • If the trader fights and loses, he is marked hostile as soon as the interdiction completes. Shoot all you want.

From a trader's perspective:
  • If you submit, then you can chat and you can drop cargo with no "penalties". If you do anything else, then you're marked hostile (to the pirate) and he is free to shoot you without any penalty. After you've dropped X amount of cargo (don't know how this should be calculated yet - percent? tonnage?), you're allowed to throttle up/enter SC, and you're now placed in a pseudo-solo mode for Y amount of time (5 minutes? 10 minutes?).
  • If you fight interdiction and lose, then you're automatically hostile, and can boost/SC/high-wake/whatever.

Just throwing ideas against the wall here...
 

Lanz

L
Honestly, if it was more profitable I would be inclined to be more piratey. It's too tedious to offload stolen cargo and a decked out gunship can't carry much cargo anyways.
 

Smokedemon

S
Hmmn.

I used to play eve and enjoyed the thrill of the battle, and at the moment in ED I trade in open while I build up cash to do what I want. My hope is that groups evolve to control space, engage in tax/diplomacy/war and secure their space against hostile in-commers. Im taking my time to join both a faction and a Group till I find one that suits me. I hope that then, we can hunt griefers in our patch, use q ship tactics and ambush them. So maybe it will level out as People get organised. Anyway realistic or not that s what Im looking for and we will have to see whether the game evolves that way, or not.
 

Commander Debic

Commander Debic
Smokedemon said:
Hmmn.

I used to play eve and enjoyed the thrill of the battle, and at the moment in ED I trade in open while I build up cash to do what I want. My hope is that groups evolve to control space, engage in tax/diplomacy/war and secure their space against hostile in-commers. Im taking my time to join both a faction and a Group till I find one that suits me. I hope that then, we can hunt griefers in our patch, use q ship tactics and ambush them. So maybe it will level out as People get organised. Anyway realistic or not that s what Im looking for and we will have to see whether the game evolves that way, or not.
Click to expand...
I bloody hope not. after 6 years in Eve the last thing I want to see here is AAA, Test or Goons trying to own vast areas of space and laying down stupid laws about who can enter their "sacred" domains and who cannot. If you want Eve play why the devil did you leave Eve and come here they seem to have all you want. We don't need Eve 2 in ED.
 

Mr_Blastman

Mr_Blastman
Asp Explorer said:
Jordan, I am really looking forward to CQC for duelling. A chance to try my hand in combat against opponents who I know will be armed and trying to defeat me, in an arena that has no real effect on the Elite game itself. I'm all for blowing stuff up, I just don't want to blow things up that take time from someone, as a persons playtime is utterly irreplaceable. CQC seems to offer that, I look forward to it, and I hope I can get a go at you myself. I won't try to escape :D In the real Elite game - escaping is at least 75% of the fun.
Click to expand...

CQC won't be the same as PvP in regular Elite because there are no stakes. There are no risks. There are no penalties for failure. Players fight and behave differently when money is on the line. That's what makes PvP in Elite so interesting.
 
Last edited:

Jordan Cobalt

Jordan Cobalt
Mr_Blastman said:
CQC won't be the same as PvP in regular Elite because there are no stakes. There are no risks. There are no penalties for failure. Players fight and behave differently when money is on the line. That's what makes PvP in Elite so interesting.
Click to expand...
Yea, that's why I'm hesitant about CQC. No stakes is boring to me.

I love the feeling of fighting a bounty hunter in my torn up ship with a hold full of stolen cargo. It really gets the heart pumping.
 

Lanz

L
Cqc will be excellent for stress testing builds against living targets and getting pvp practice in general, but it's no substitute for open world pvp.
 

CMDR Derrida

C
I remember when CMDR Rondog from Archon Delaine harassed Cubeo for the good part of a week. He didn't want our palladium, he asked only for our wives! LOL
 

jacozilla

jacozilla
Lanz said:
It's not rare or meaningful because Frontier hasn't added anything meaningful to the interaction. I suppose I could macro a message that says "Avast ye scurvy dog! Prepare to die!" Before I vaporize people, but it wouldn't make much difference to me either way. Combat is a bad time for idle banter anyways.

But you don't play online anyways, so what does it matter to you how people play? You obviously just don't like PVP.
Click to expand...

Logic fallacy. If someone doesnt play Open because the environment is a cess pit to them, that doesnt mean they wouldnt play in open if the cess pit was removed.

and you are confusing online with Open - we are all online even in solo, AND alternatives to open like Mobius which is fully online and group play exist - the difference is Mobius is Open play without the cess pit.

and you confuse being a soldier, which i once was as an 11-bravo, with clubbing baby seals. PVP used to mean actual player vs player combat - between combatants.

Not liking pew pew gankers does not equal not liking pvp
 

jacozilla

jacozilla
Mr_Blastman said:
CQC won't be the same as PvP in regular Elite because there are no stakes. There are no risks. There are no penalties for failure. Players fight and behave differently when money is on the line. That's what makes PvP in Elite so interesting.
Click to expand...

where is the stakes and risk for a pew pew ganker piloting far lower insurance re-buy vs the unarmed trader with even mid size freighter rebuy 1M + 3.5M cargo loss?

are you equating there is any stakes or risk at all for the pew pew ganker vs the just the cargo loss alone?

If you want there to be stakes and risks, then you need both sides of the equation to balance
 

Lanz

L
jacozilla said:
where is the stakes and risk for a pew pew ganker piloting far lower insurance re-buy vs the unarmed trader with even mid size freighter rebuy 1M + 3.5M cargo loss?

are you equating there is any stakes or risk at all for the pew pew ganker vs the just the cargo loss alone?

If you want there to be stakes and risks, then you need both sides of the equation to balance
Click to expand...

This is why haulers should either be armed or have an escort. Otherwise they're just prey in space.
 

jacozilla

jacozilla
Lanz said:
This is why haulers should either be armed or have an escort. Otherwise they're just prey in space.
Click to expand...

The escort part I get. And not saying haulers can't run right now - but while I've armed my type 7 so 100% of pirates I sometimes mess up the interdiction with I can fight off (or run) - I'm not sure how being fully armed helps at all with player interdictions

Even armed freighters aren't going to stand up to actual combat ships (with major caveat being my funds have only allowed me to progress to type 7 so far, maybe this is different with the multipurpose cargo/combat ships I've read about but not tried? e.g. python
 

Lanz

L
jacozilla said:
The escort part I get. And not saying haulers can't run right now - but while I've armed my type 7 so 100% of pirates I sometimes mess up the interdiction with I can fight off (or run) - I'm not sure how being fully armed helps at all with player interdictions

Even armed freighters aren't going to stand up to actual combat ships (with major caveat being my funds have only allowed me to progress to type 7 so far, maybe this is different with the multipurpose cargo/combat ships I've read about but not tried? e.g. python
Click to expand...

I think the problem here is the lack of variety in weapons in terms of distrptive and debilitating guns, but as a ship that just aims to escape, you could focus fire on specific parts like engines to hobble your attacker then escape.
 

Mr_Blastman

Mr_Blastman
jacozilla said:
where is the stakes and risk for a pew pew ganker piloting far lower insurance re-buy vs the unarmed trader with even mid size freighter rebuy 1M + 3.5M cargo loss?

are you equating there is any stakes or risk at all for the pew pew ganker vs the just the cargo loss alone?

If you want there to be stakes and risks, then you need both sides of the equation to balance
Click to expand...

It's not my problem traders are so greedy they won't pay other players to escort them for a cut of their profits.
 

jacozilla

jacozilla
Mr_Blastman said:
It's not my problem traders are so greedy they won't pay other players to escort them for a cut of their profits.
Click to expand...

It doesn't matter whether it is or isn't a problem for you. It also doesn't matter what your views on capitalism is. The context of the post replied to was balance of risk and stakes should either side lose their ship.

Whether escorted or not, whether a greedy trader or not, the loss of ship + cargo is far higher rebuy than a fighter insurance only rebut. Period. And since the topic raised in the reply was a suggestion by Mr. Blastman that "CQC won't be the same as PvP in regular Elite because there are no stakes. There are no risks. There are no penalties for failure. Players fight and behave differently when money is on the line. That's what makes PvP in Elite so interesting.

I replied to his statement that PvP in regular Elite vs CQC somehow has stakes and risks that CQC won't that in essence there are no risks and stakes in PvP in Elite right now for fighter rebuy the enormous cost differential for ship + cargo loss on freighters. That was the only context in which I was replying. Whether we agree or disagree on the overall PvP issue is immaterial - it is simply a factual basis that if you say you want risks and stakes and that's why you are against CQC vs. just normal current Open, then you have t admit the risk/stakes loss is considerably imbalanced right now for traders vs. fighter ships
 

Lanz

L
jacozilla said:
It doesn't matter whether it is or isn't a problem for you. It also doesn't matter what your views on capitalism is. The context of the post replied to was balance of risk and stakes should either side lose their ship.

Whether escorted or not, whether a greedy trader or not, the loss of ship + cargo is far higher rebuy than a fighter insurance only rebut. Period. And since the topic raised in the reply was a suggestion by Mr. Blastman that "CQC won't be the same as PvP in regular Elite because there are no stakes. There are no risks. There are no penalties for failure. Players fight and behave differently when money is on the line. That's what makes PvP in Elite so interesting.

I replied to his statement that PvP in regular Elite vs CQC somehow has stakes and risks that CQC won't that in essence there are no risks and stakes in PvP in Elite right now for fighter rebuy the enormous cost differential for ship + cargo loss on freighters. That was the only context in which I was replying. Whether we agree or disagree on the overall PvP issue is immaterial - it is simply a factual basis that if you say you want risks and stakes and that's why you are against CQC vs. just normal current Open, then you have t admit the risk/stakes loss is considerably imbalanced right now for traders vs. fighter ships
Click to expand...

They're supposed to be. Both risk losing their ship but the cargo hauler has increased their value by having cargo, and if they aren't increasing their insurance they're taking a risk. There is no inherent imbalance here, just players not commiting as much protection as their risk value costs. They're making a high stake choice by carrying tons of cargo and not being able to defend it. That's their choice. The game is not imbalanced just because the players don't protect their investments.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom