Hypothetical Piracy Module: PvP and PvE

[Morbad]

I like the idea of making piracy viable through some sort of non-lethal means.

New equipment, especially stuff with convoluted and inexplicable powers, isn't going to do this.

Being destroyed needs to be painful enough that a potential victim has reason to play ball.

Destroying a victim needs to have, at least in some areas, consequence enough that a potential pirate has reason to consider this to be an absolute last resort.

 

[[Diplomacy] Carnegie]

New equipment, especially stuff with convoluted and inexplicable powers, isn't going to do this.

Being destroyed needs to be painful enough that a potential victim has reason to play ball.

Destroying a victim needs to have, at least in some areas, consequence enough that a potential pirate has reason to consider this to be an absolute last resort.

As long as being destroyed is painful to the victim then people will take the easy way out - play solo or combat log.
If you make the result of clogging equal to, or worse, that playing along then that addresses half the problem. Keeping the penalties of being pirated down MIGHT mean people stay in Open. Especially since any module available to players should also be equipped by NPCs.

 

[StiTch]

@Stitch

Totally agree with your comments regarding the technical/mechanical limitations, and this suggestion doesn't address any of them.

However, it does, I think, make it easier for the 'victim' to understand whether they're up against a ganker or a PvP pirate - which I think would reduce the tendency to combat log immediately upon interdiction.

The key thing, I think, about this suggestion is that it would allow the pirate to gain cargo even if the target combat logs. Ship loss after a real network disconnect (not combat log) is something that FDev want to avoid, but losing (say) 4t of cargo is, I believe, on a completely different scale and does not constitute a huge punishment for something that isn't the player's fault.

It's quite an artificial way of handling it - I'd rather not see piracy deliberately boil down to "press button, target clogs, 4T of cargo appears, move on".

As above, piracy is the "profession" most boiling with potential for dynamic PvP engagements; the pirate should be able to choose how he approaches his target, be it through sheer social engineering, skilled module disabling etc., and see choice and consequence take effect. Successful negotiation with the target, everyone walks away unharmed; trader rejects demands, pirate aims to shoot out his thrusters and then cargo hatch, and cops will arrive to apprehend the pirate - but the trader may be damaged and ultimately lose considerably more cargo. There are more methods available but choice and consequence absolutely need to be the driving force in this game.

Ultimately if FD were even half bothered about piracy they would reinforce that combat logging is a no-no, pure and simple. It's not the pirate's responsibility to have the tools to ensure the target doesn't cheat to escape. And if this were reinforced we might be reminded that choice and consequence should exist as more than punishing murderers and pirates; it should affect every player in the game, as the very lifeblood of "blaze your own trail". Don't want to get pirated? Build a trader with more than the minimum shields and no armour. Want to know if you're about to be pirated or murdered? Take the five seconds to check the sub targets panel, which should reveal quickly whether the assailant has piracy based modules.

Don't get me wrong, I am not against tools for piracy; it would just be more effective to smooth out base mechanics first, be natural, and not be an attempt to make piracy harmless. Hatch breakers through shields already tried that And on a side note, without wanting to start the argument about it, as long as there is no incentive for players to trade in Open...well, I don't really need to finish that, do I? Let's not blame murderers and poor piracy attempts for the utter ambiguousness of ED as a "multiplayer" game.

So did we or did we not establish that the whole point of "piracy" versus "murder" is the difference between "profit" or not? Now I'm sort of confused, because the arguments I most frequently hear from pirates is "we're not murderers" (and conversely "don't equate us with such"). With this, I can only deduce, that perhaps before FD can expand "Piracy" as a profession, the community needs to decide what the actual definition of it is?

Well it's someone wot stole cargo, innit? The motivation for that, at present, is 110% for enjoyment over profit; I wouldn't be surprised if PvP piracy were the lowest paying activity in the game. Back when engineers required cargo there was a second less frequent motive, being one could pirate engineering modules, but even that hidden little nugget of content got blitzed - and now we're back to cargo being a sole money printing tool.

Ofc don't get me wrong, I would kiss an effigy of Braben if piracy/crime in general became the high risk, high reward beast it deserves to be.

As a side note pirates are quick to dismiss links with murder for multiple reasons, but tbh it's not their issue to fix if some people break down at the notion of a PvP player that doesn't spend every waking minute seal clubbing. Almost any discussion here that relates to crime or PvP inevitably tends towards "punish murderers!" as the thread continues, and many pirates are bored of that being the only discussion point, and of their profession being mangled to hamper murder (murder ironically being the least affected) - not to mention groups like the Code rely on a reputation of asking nicely before getting mean.

 

[Ian Doncaster]

The big problem with PvP piracy is that in the Elite Dangerous setting as described piracy is not realistic. You should never meet an NPC pirate either - in the previous three games this was an acceptable break from reality in favour of gameplay; now that it's gone multiplayer the fact that the Elite series' economy never actually made sense is rather more visible.

Essentially: for piracy as depicted in Elite to be a profitable use of a cargo hold, the pirate needs to be able to reliably (on average) steal so much cargo from the trader that the trader makes a loss on the trip. (The trader still makes an overall profit because they're not robbed on *every* trip)

The pirate therefore makes a larger gross profit than the trader, which is then worn down back to smaller levels by the costs associated with having people try to kill you.

The mathematical models of piracy and bounty hunting are quite interesting - and I really should find time to write them up properly - and can lead to things like gold rushes, periodic waves of pirate invasions, traders taking up arms to defend their fellows, etc. naturally occurring with minimal intervention, given the right starting conditions, as people simply act to maximise their own profits. However, Elite Dangerous is so far away from those right starting conditions [1] that the realistic evolution would be "everyone is a trader" (which in PvP terms is basically what happens).

Because PvE/EvP piracy and bounty hunting require unrealistic concessions to gameplay to make them profitable relative to trading...
- PvE piracy: T-9s loaded full of diamonds with no shields and dumb pilots
- EvP piracy: NPC pirates with a poor grasp of economics and insufficient armament
- PvE bounty hunting: RES/CNB
- EvP bouty hunting: NPC bounty hunters with an utterly terrible grasp of economics and no self-preservation instincts
...there is absolutely no way that PvP piracy or bounty hunting can be made to work on a "is profitable" basis (rather than a "is not profitable but might be fun anyway" basis) because it's basically opposing two actors who the game design says must always win. And then they can't both win, and the economics massively favour the trader.

You could have a game where that wasn't the case. Elite Dangerous is not it, and I can't see a practical way to turn it in to that game either. And no: force everyone to Open, redevelop the networking to be server-based, and abolish combat logging ... makes no difference. That's not actually the problem. (The actual changes needed would, I think, be even *less* popular than those, though entirely compatible with a P2P 3-mode architecture)

 

[StiTch]

Essentially: for piracy as depicted in Elite to be a profitable use of a cargo hold, the pirate needs to be able to reliably (on average) steal so much cargo from the trader that the trader makes a loss on the trip. (The trader still makes an overall profit because they're not robbed on *every* trip)

To be fair FD could identify some way to make stolen cargo more profitable, but I think many pirates would be happy if piracy were simply a coherent and enjoyable activity. I don't think anyone's done it for profit since the game started, but if 4 out of 5 players don't CL amidst throwing insults it'd be much better for it.

 

[M00ka]

The biggest problem with PvP Pirates at the moment are the Pirates themselves. The last time I ventured into Open (about 2 weeks ago), I decided to run some haulage missions. Mainly because all the PvP experts here on the forums have been preaching on how safe Open is now and there really isn't any ganking, griefing or any naughty play at all!

First mission went fine, so did the second. The third mission I was interdicted by a Vulture - far enough, I accepted the interdiction being curious to see what happened. The 'Pirate' immediately opened fire, so I took his shields down, then turned to low wake out (yes LOW WAKE). Next thing I see is the Pirate calling me some very unsavoury names for fighting back, he was a pirate dammit and I should have immediately dropped all my cargo. Ignored him and jumped back into SC to complete the mission.

Next mission, saw the same Vulture again in SC, so I looped around to get behind him - he again queries my parentage and then tells me he will report me for Combat Logging (!) then High Waked out (well I hope it was a High Wake and not a Combat Log). So I continued to the station and was interdicted again, this time by a Courier. Again curious, I submitted, and this time was told to drop all my cargo or bad things would happen. Sent a double beam across his bows (careful not to hit him of course, didn't want to be wanted) and said NO. We chatted back and forth for a bit, it was actually quite funny at times, and I genuinely felt a little sorry for him so I dropped some excess cargo I was carrying. He sheepishly thanked me then admitted he didn't actually have any cargo racks in his courier. Yep a Pirate who can't even accept cargo - a real smart one there.

So in less than a hour, I met two real live, honest to god PvP Pirates, one had no idea and the second apparently didn't realise that being a Pirate entailed retrieving cargo at some stage.

Anyway, it got me thinking, how many of these PvP Pirates actually retrieve cargo that is dropped for their benefit? How many of these Pirates will interdict a cargo ship knowing that if they succeed and their victim does jettison all his cargo, the Pirate knows fully that he doesn't have the space to retrieve only a few containers at most? I would love it if part of the new C&P coming in that anyone interdicting another player and victim jettisons cargo then the aggressor is fined for every canister they don't pick up.

 

[NeilF]

Just spitballing an idea here, so feel free to shoot it down

Imagine a new module, the effect of which is to both immobilize the target and also protect it from damage - a kind of stasis field, if you will. The stasis field is keyed to the mass of the ship and the only way to disable it is to reduce the ship's mass - ie. to drop cargo.
Once the ship's mass has dropped sufficiently it is no longer immobilized, but retains the invulnerability for (say) 15 seconds - this gives the target time to escape without being destroyed. There should probably be an additional 60s immunity to prevent chain interdictions.

Higher grade/class modules require more cargo to be dropped to be disabled, but obviously ejecting all cargo would have to disable it too.
The pirate would also have the ability to drop the stasis at any time, but the invulnerability remains.

It should also be possible to resist the effect, but maybe at the cost of shields, or increased FSD charge time.

Finally, if the player under stasis logs out, then cargo is automatically dropped, starting with the highest value items - that way there's actually an incentive to stay logged in.

It's a bit more 'magic' than I would like, but maybe somebody can theorycraft some tech for it.

I THINK I've covered the possible exploits and griefing mechanisms, but I'm confident the Forum can provide some that I've not considered.

All feedback welcome.

Still prefer the idea of:-
1) Bring in logical penalties for illegal destruction (on the way hopefully).
2) Hatch breakers cannot go through shields. Instead you cannot lock/fire them until the victims shields are down to 1 bar or less (or they have no shields). We now have an element of skill involved again for pirates, and traders shields have purpose!
3) Hatch breakers are better scaled to obtain cargo from small/large ships for use by pirates in small/large ships. ie: A pirate in a large ship can use a hatch breaker to obtain a lot of cargo from a victim in a large ship.
4) Collection limpets are better scaled to collecting more cargo (see sig "Bundle Cargo").


The premise would be if you are pirating someone, you'd need to get their shields down to a reasonable level first. This would risk bringing authority vessels (depending on security levels), but not as quickly as if/when you started hitting hull instead! So if you pirate without damage/destruction you are likely to see security responses less frequently than if you behave like a psycho etc. They may well turn up quickly, but it's less likely...

ps: Showing the countdown to exit to menu to all CMDRs in the instance would be useful!

 

[Sylveria]

The biggest problem with PvP Pirates at the moment are the Pirates themselves.

It really does seem as if there's no real consensus, doesn't it? Some you ask will tell you they do it for the cargo, whereas you would assume "profit", then others argue there's no profit to be had, so what's the point, then others say they only destroy ships if someone does not comply, then others favor murder and nothing else (which doesn't make them "pirates", it makes them murderers/assassins)

As I stated, I think before FD can really "expand the profession" as they're always asking about, perhaps some common agreement among themselves is in order first- because until that happens you'll always have people suggesting ideas that fit within the existing context of the framework. The idea is a decent one, the problem is we'll never get agreement from pirates when they can't even agree with themselves what they really are in the first place.

 

[Valethar]

Regarding traders using it to escape:
That's why I suggested it be resistable (with penalty). If a trader uses it on a pirate, the pirate simply says 'no thanks' and things progress as they do now. Also, having a cooldown on usage prevents both chain piracy and chain evasion.

Seems a bit one sided, doesn't it? Pretty much takes it out of the realm of a legit gameplay mechanic, and into a tool for griefers.

It's all downside for the trader/victim, and pure win for the aggressor.

I don't see that adding to legit piracy gameplay at all. If anything, it would just encourage people to stay in or move to Solo/PG to avoid the iWin button for pirates.

 

[StiTch]

It really does seem as if there's no real consensus, doesn't it? ...perhaps some common agreement among themselves is in order first

Okay, we want an in depth crime system that offers engaging high-risk, high-reward (profit or otherwise) activities, with the opportunity for engaging and dynamic PvP interactions, that can extend into viability of altering the galaxy's state, supported by a galaxy that treats the criminal differently based on his actions and who is handling him (leading to dynamic PvE handling in inhabited space), supported in turn by a game platform that doesn't allow targets to disappear at will and "rejoin" the galaxy where they cannot be harmed because they didn't feel like taking part.

Enough? Right, take that to FD and run with it while we try and work out what parts to ask for that might actually ever make it

 

[Sylveria]

Okay, we want an in depth crime system that offers engaging high-risk, high-reward (profit or otherwise) activities, with the opportunity for engaging and dynamic PvP interactions, that can extend into viability of altering the galaxy's state, supported by a galaxy that treats the criminal differently based on his actions and who is handling him (leading to dynamic PvE handling in inhabited space), supported in turn by a game platform that doesn't allow targets to disappear at will and "rejoin" the galaxy where they cannot be harmed because they didn't feel like taking part.

Enough? Right, take that to FD and run with it while we try and work out what parts to ask for that might actually ever make it

As soon as there's a consensus from everyone who claims to be a pirate in this game, I'm sure FD would love to open a dedicated forum so you can give your feedback

 

[Ian Doncaster]

To be fair FD could identify some way to make stolen cargo more profitable, but I think many pirates would be happy if piracy were simply a coherent and enjoyable activity. I don't think anyone's done it for profit since the game started, but if 4 out of 5 players don't CL amidst throwing insults it'd be much better for it.

Part of the necessary changes, I think, is for EvP pirates to be successful often enough that a player stealing your cargo instead isn't really that big a change.

A game design that lets players be functionally invincible safe in their own individual power fantasies *except* on the rare occasions they meet each other ... not going to go well.

 

[Marra Morgan]

It really does seem as if there's no real consensus, doesn't it? Some you ask will tell you they do it for the cargo, whereas you would assume "profit", then others argue there's no profit to be had, so what's the point, then others say they only destroy ships if someone does not comply, then others favor murder and nothing else (which doesn't make them "pirates", it makes them murderers/assassins)

As I stated, I think before FD can really "expand the profession" as they're always asking about, perhaps some common agreement among themselves is in order first- because until that happens you'll always have people suggesting ideas that fit within the existing context of the framework. The idea is a decent one, the problem is we'll never get agreement from pirates when they can't even agree with themselves what they really are in the first place.

Different people having different ideas about what makes something fun and enjoyable?!

I'm sure FD will work on the criminal professions as and when they are ready, and not be waiting on some SurveyMonkey from the pirates on what we think we are

 

[Morbad]

As long as being destroyed is painful to the victim then people will take the easy way out - play solo or combat log.
If you make the result of clogging equal to, or worse, that playing along then that addresses half the problem. Keeping the penalties of being pirated down MIGHT mean people stay in Open. Especially since any module available to players should also be equipped by NPCs.

You can't make cheaters play fair by changing the rules of the game to cater to them.

Cheating is a separate issue from the viability of piracy and will only be dealt with by implementing actual punishments that discourage would-be cheaters from entering situations where they might be tempted to cheat, because the consequences of doing so would be worse than allowing the situation to play out.

The big problem with PvP piracy is that in the Elite Dangerous setting as described piracy is not realistic. You should never meet an NPC pirate either - in the previous three games this was an acceptable break from reality in favour of gameplay; now that it's gone multiplayer the fact that the Elite series' economy never actually made sense is rather more visible.

Essentially: for piracy as depicted in Elite to be a profitable use of a cargo hold, the pirate needs to be able to reliably (on average) steal so much cargo from the trader that the trader makes a loss on the trip. (The trader still makes an overall profit because they're not robbed on *every* trip)

The pirate therefore makes a larger gross profit than the trader, which is then worn down back to smaller levels by the costs associated with having people try to kill you.

The mathematical models of piracy and bounty hunting are quite interesting - and I really should find time to write them up properly - and can lead to things like gold rushes, periodic waves of pirate invasions, traders taking up arms to defend their fellows, etc. naturally occurring with minimal intervention, given the right starting conditions, as people simply act to maximise their own profits. However, Elite Dangerous is so far away from those right starting conditions [1] that the realistic evolution would be "everyone is a trader" (which in PvP terms is basically what happens).

Because PvE/EvP piracy and bounty hunting require unrealistic concessions to gameplay to make them profitable relative to trading...
- PvE piracy: T-9s loaded full of diamonds with no shields and dumb pilots
- EvP piracy: NPC pirates with a poor grasp of economics and insufficient armament
- PvE bounty hunting: RES/CNB
- EvP bouty hunting: NPC bounty hunters with an utterly terrible grasp of economics and no self-preservation instincts
...there is absolutely no way that PvP piracy or bounty hunting can be made to work on a "is profitable" basis (rather than a "is not profitable but might be fun anyway" basis) because it's basically opposing two actors who the game design says must always win. And then they can't both win, and the economics massively favour the trader.

You could have a game where that wasn't the case. Elite Dangerous is not it, and I can't see a practical way to turn it in to that game either. And no: force everyone to Open, redevelop the networking to be server-based, and abolish combat logging ... makes no difference. That's not actually the problem. (The actual changes needed would, I think, be even *less* popular than those, though entirely compatible with a P2P 3-mode architecture)

I don't think it would be impossible, but as I've mentioned earlier, I do agree with much of your assessment here. Some of the core mechanisms of the game make piracy fairly absurd and it would take radical changes to give the act a rational place in the game.

 

[Ian Doncaster]

It really does seem as if there's no real consensus, doesn't it? Some you ask will tell you they do it for the cargo, whereas you would assume "profit", then others argue there's no profit to be had, so what's the point,

Similarly, the exploration community has quite a wide variety of motivations, care for the profitability of exploration, and indeed opinions on what counts as exploration and how much it matches to what you get paid for in the first place. Should they be required to come to a consensus on what exploration *is* before Frontier will improve it?

In both cases the issue is the same: the profession as implemented in game is fairly thin - for different reasons, of course - so people come up with their own interpretations and motivations for doing it, which are hardly going to match up with anyone else's.

A more well-defined profession by the game might *lead* to more player consensus as to what it is and why/how it's done...

 

[Morbad]

Professions don't need to be defined and player consensus on them doesn't mean a damn thing.

There aren't any 'real' pirates in Elite: Dangerous because as has been mentioned, the setting we actually have is not conducive to it. At best, you have the equivalent of a rich kleptomaniac who tries to steal cargo from the semi-willing piracy tourist who gets off on the idea of piracy, but could probably just leave any time they felt like it. By the time anyone has the skill and tools to even attempt piracy, they have absolutely no need to do so. Likewise by the time the target knows enough to even figure out what is going on, they should have the ability to evade almost any attacker that gives them even a second to act before destroying them.

All the well wishing in the world won't make piracy make any sense until the game gets some semblance of an economy and participation in hostilities stops being 100% optional. I hold out faint hope for the former, but I don't ever expect to see the latter.

 

[Vorxian]

I once had a thought about a sort of player guided grappling drone type thing. When deployed, the pilot switches to a grappling camera (thus immobilizing their actual ship because no one is controlling it, a bit like the camera drone). The pirate uses the grappling drone to blast towards the victim's ship, aiming at the cargo hatch which is shown on the control console, a bit like scooping cargo using the cargo hatch.. Once the grappling drone has connected to the cargo hatch, the pirate then sees the inventory of the cargo, and can eject items of value. There may be a cap on items depending on the module used.. All the while the victim can opt to play along, or he can attempt to physically shake off the grappling with some agile moves whilst an integrity bar shows how much rocking and rolling the grappling can withstand. Naturally bigger ships will find this much more difficult...

Anyway, just hot gassing. Thought a wrestling game with a pirate seems to be a bit more immersive than a simple general anesthetic, and wake up with cargo missing

Love the discussion though. Some awesome points of view.

 

[Han_Zen]

I'm not so sure about this 'catch and release' piracy.

I think it would be better if a ship that is blown up, drops all onboard cargo.

This would make piracy profitable and at the same time push pirates towards ships with plenty cargo space and cargo limpets. Combined with a sensible C&P system, I think it would make it more fun for all players.

It would feel much better to be blown up by someone trying to make a living, that a spots hunter.

 

[Vorxian]

I'm not so sure about this 'catch and release' piracy.

I think it would be better if a ship that is blown up, drops all onboard cargo.

This would make piracy profitable and at the same time push pirates towards ships with plenty cargo space and cargo limpets. Combined with a sensible C&P system, I think it would make it more fun for all players.

It would feel much better to be blown up by someone trying to make a living, that a spots hunter.

The only problem with this is a 60m Cutter, with another 20m of cargo, being shot to hell. The trader loses 80m, and the pirate makes 2-3m in stolen cargo? What C&P can make up for that kind of loss? Then we're back to the whole OPEN vs SOLO Hotel California.

It just feels a bit too... Eve online, for me

 

[Marra Morgan]

The only problem with this is a 60m Cutter, with another 20m of cargo, being shot to hell. The trader loses 80m, and the pirate makes 2-3m in stolen cargo? What C&P can make up for that kind of loss? Then we're back to the whole OPEN vs SOLO Hotel California.

It just feels a bit too... Eve online, for me

EVE pirates rely on loot drops from their victims, so the process is much, much easier