Revert no fire zone / drop distances to stations to pre gamma(?) distances and other C + P tweaks

[Rubbernuke]

Currently its far too easy to never see an NPC opponent from missions. Commanders drop far too close to stations and enter the no fire zone (NFZ) almost instantly, making any NPC bounty hunter or pirate instantly fly off (making them redundant).

A distance like 20Km (or perhaps shrink the NFZ or do both) would create a space where players would need to run or fight off attackers. If NPCs have no long range lasers (aside from ATR) then this is essential. This change would also be truer to the 84 Elite. It would also be a useful space for Powerplay NPC wings to attack enemies.

Station security would be present as normal.

Please create proper NPC pirates with proper loadouts. Cytoscramblers, ion mines, hatchbreakers, chaff, reverb cascade, drag munitions- they should all feature in some way to provide a challenge.

Please also make it the NAV buoy is used more- mainly as again this is an area where pirates and bounty hunters can attack.

Please give a fine to those who are clean but do not submit to military / police scans (i.e. NPC military / security ships interdict). It makes no sense that you can ignore a direct authority order and still be innocent.

Please either randomise ATR past a certain threshold (i.e. 5 notoriety onwards, random as the chance increases they pop up with no warning, mixed wings of sec and ATR), or remove them and make all security ships spec ops in capability. The former would make BGS murder much more interesting and risky, the latter would lower overall security kills naturally and ATR would therefore not be needed. In both cases this would need to be done in parallel with rebalancing negative BGS actions which currently favour positive BGS actions.

This would have the following benefits:

NPCs spawned in missions to intercept you in real space (either pirates or mercs wanting to kill you) leading to more interaction.

General NPC pirate spawns (perhaps linked to states, fluctuating)- PvE piracy would be more prevalent with NPCs, both for players pirating NPCs and player traders being robbed by NPCs.

A legitimate space for PvP piracy.

A legitimate space for Powerplay NPCs to attack / Open Powerplay (making fortification / preparation runs more varied and carry risk)

Help prevent bots (because NPC pirates will be about making autopilot risky)

Gives purpose to engineering like drag drives, extra defenses (minimizes min / maxing).

 

[Killnine]

I wholeheartedly support this. Currently, stations are simply boring.

 

[Bloodsign]

Great thoughts, CMDR Rubbernuke. I like the idea of dropping out of supercruise at 20 km.

Also, ATR is just FDev's way of letting the game cheat. Are ATR stalking me or something, doing nothing about my super high bounty but intervening only when I do something naughty? It's inane and immersion breaking. It's cost me several CMDR kills this last week. On the plus side, surviving ATR long enough to kill a CMDR is very satisfying and actually a worthy challenge.

I guess this is maybe the part where I come clean and admit that I am now sorta kinda a ganker. It IS more fun than most other game mechanics. I think I've killed about 30 CMDRs in the last month, but I've been much more indiscriminate this last week.

 

[Bloodsign]

No, bad Rick, bad! You're not supposed to give me a +1 for admitting that I've been ganking and seal clubbing!

You're supposed to revile me, Rick! You're supposed to tell me I'm scum! Tell me I'm scum, Rick! Tell me I'm scum!!!

 

[K M Butler]

THIS set of proposals I can support wholeheartedly!

 

[Tenshi]

Currently its far too easy to never see an NPC opponent from missions. Commanders drop far too close to stations and enter the no fire zone (NFZ) almost instantly, making any NPC bounty hunter or pirate instantly fly off (making them redundant).

A distance like 20Km (or perhaps shrink the NFZ or do both) would create a space where players would need to run or fight off attackers. If NPCs have no long range lasers (aside from ATR) then this is essential. This change would also be truer to the 84 Elite. It would also be a useful space for Powerplay NPC wings to attack enemies.

Station security would be present as normal.

Please create proper NPC pirates with proper loadouts. Cytoscramblers, ion mines, hatchbreakers, chaff, reverb cascade, drag munitions- they should all feature in some way to provide a challenge.

Please also make it the NAV buoy is used more- mainly as again this is an area where pirates and bounty hunters can attack.

Please give a fine to those who are clean but do not submit to military / police scans (i.e. NPC military / security ships interdict). It makes no sense that you can ignore a direct authority order and still be innocent.

Please either randomise ATR past a certain threshold (i.e. 5 notoriety onwards, random as the chance increases they pop up with no warning, mixed wings of sec and ATR), or remove them and make all security ships spec ops in capability. The former would make BGS murder much more interesting and risky, the latter would lower overall security kills naturally and ATR would therefore not be needed. In both cases this would need to be done in parallel with rebalancing negative BGS actions which currently favour positive BGS actions.

The reason the players now drop in closer to the station was because many found it boring to fly the last 20km to the station.

They can give the AI more intelligence but then people would not be able to kill a simple harmless sidewinder. They have tried this in Alpha, and even the hardcore players who only fight and pvp couldn't survive.

As for the ATR:- My thoughts are if you have a high bounty with a high notoriety then all security forces should attack on sight, even stations where the bounty is posted at. The player should be hunted whilst in supercruise by npcs and players alike. Play the bad guy by all means, but face the consequences.

 

[Bashy81]

No, bad Rick, bad! You're not supposed to give me a +1 for admitting that I've been ganking and seal clubbing!

You're supposed to revile me, Rick! You're supposed to tell me I'm scum! Tell me I'm scum, Rick! Tell me I'm scum!!!

No, youre not scum, or a sociopath for ganking and finding it fun. No babies were burned on a pyre in the making of your entertainment.

But you are getting a banal form of self gratification heightened by the frustration of others. It is the flipside equivalent of those who get a kick out of frustrating PMFs etc, by taunting & exploiting gamey mechanics in Solo, with zero risk of being directly opposed.

These people arent scum either. Theyre just pitiable, as they, like you, are thriving on wasting other people's time, whilst not giving themselves any challenge. A game without challenge isnt really a game. Its a sidetrack at best, and its reasonable to assume its more suited to a therapy session than an MMO.

There are people no doubt who prefer self gratification to mutual fulfillment. And there is an adjective for those people which is neither complementory nor allowed on these forums. And it rhymes with ganker, not incidentally.

Mostly tho, forget any attempts at remote-psychiatry. You wanna find yourself some endgame content mate. Youre only rushing towards ur own uninstall otherwise, and dont you still enjoy the game, really ?

 

[Morbad]

The reason the players now drop in closer to the station was because many found it boring to fly the last 20km to the station.

They could have learned to drop in manually; back when the drop range was 20km, before they crapped up instancing, manual drop outs with 1-2km accuracy were possible, with practice.

I think boredom was less the issue than compromising one's ability to rapidly cycle missions/commodity trades. It's at least boring to drop in with no chance of any risky encounter other than a silent sidewinder rammer waiting to punish you for speeding.

 

[Rubbernuke]

The reason the players now drop in closer to the station was because many found it boring to fly the last 20km to the station.

They can give the AI more intelligence but then people would not be able to kill a simple harmless sidewinder. They have tried this in Alpha, and even the hardcore players who only fight and pvp couldn't survive.

As for the ATR:- My thoughts are if you have a high bounty with a high notoriety then all security forces should attack on sight, even stations where the bounty is posted at. The player should be hunted whilst in supercruise by npcs and players alike. Play the bad guy by all means, but face the consequences.

Re boredom - 20Km in a fast ship is a few extra seconds for most. In a large slow transport much longer but would give NPC attackers a window in which to threaten you. In both cases it actually makes a case for engineering (drag drives) in anarchy, low, or even medium sec areas. In high sec the minute a shot lands you'd have sec forces to help you. In all cases it makes security and its level much more important. Plus, if people can spend an hour flying to Hutton an extra minute with the chance of attack is worth it for the game.

Plus, EDs mission loops need challenge added to them- I can count on one finger the times in five years an NPC has destroyed me during a mission. In Powerplay the AI needs to be better as well otherwise NPCs are just noise.

 

[enonymous]

Let's not add more screensaver gameplay. There's too much of it as is.

 

[Faded Glory]

With regards to NPC's this is not really relevant.

Mission spawned incoming enemies, if they are randomly generated to oppose a mission can and do spawn right behind the player ready to interdict, and if they drop out of range they will generally still catch up when the player slows down on approaching the station.

Random pirates sometimes spawn elsewhere in the system, which is obviously much more realistic, but can have a problem getting within interdiction range if the player doesn't slow down to let them.

These are the two opposing ends of the realism bridge that FD are trying to navigate, players will complain when the NPC's can't get into position to attack and say there's no challenge, and will also complain that it breaks immersion when they spawn on the player's tail.

In any case, combat against NPC's is pretty much optional as players can simply evade the interdiction. Presumably this is intentional and FD prefer to leave it up to the player to decide how much combat they engage in. Personally I look forward to it as combat is content, so I let the NPC's interdict me, but it doesn't bother me if other players choose to avoid it and play the game differently.

For sure, to create a location where players will be able to get other players reliably, then your suggestion is fine.

 

[Rubbernuke]

Let's not add more screensaver gameplay. There's too much of it as is.

Not an accurate description. By moving the dropout zone further away and reducing the NFZ, you would have an ideal area for:

NPCs spawned in missions to intercept you in real space (either pirates or mercs wanting to kill you)

General NPC pirate spawns (perhaps linked to states, fluctuating)

A legitimate space for PvP piracy

A legitimate space for Powerplay NPCs to attack / Open Powerplay

Help prevent bots (because NPC pirates will be about making autopilot risky)

Gives purpose to engineering like drag drives, extra defenses (minimizes min / maxing)

 

[Rubbernuke]

With regards to NPC's this is not really relevant.

Mission spawned incoming enemies, if they are randomly generated to oppose a mission can and do spawn right behind the player ready to interdict, and if they drop out of range they will generally still catch up when the player slows down on approaching the station.

Random pirates sometimes spawn elsewhere in the system, which is obviously much more realistic, but can have a problem getting within interdiction range if the player doesn't slow down to let them.

These are the two opposing ends of the realism bridge that FD are trying to navigate, players will complain when the NPC's can't get into position to attack and say there's no challenge, and will also complain that it breaks immersion when they spawn on the player's tail.

In any case, combat against NPC's is pretty much optional as players can simply evade the interdiction. Presumably this is intentional and FD prefer to leave it up to the player to decide how much combat they engage in. Personally I look forward to it as combat is content, so I let the NPC's interdict me, but it doesn't bother me if other players choose to avoid it and play the game differently.

For sure, to create a location where players will be able to get other players reliably, then your suggestion is fine.

NPCs pose no challenge spawned in missions. NPC interdictions are easy to avoid in nearly all ships, and as long as the larger ships can withstand a high wakes worth of punishment are no threat.

FD have closed nearly every NPC threat area: NAVs, SC, around stations to the point of making most interactions redundant.

 

[Hossi]

Some interesting ideas here.
I generally like the idea to drop out further away from the station. Could make for some interesting gameplay.
Maybe even a bit more...50km maybe? That would hive you some time to actually do something appart from boosting twice and dropping a chaff. To compensate you could limit the number of intedictions per system to maybe 3...(these chain-interdictions get old really fast)
Would certainly make blockade running a bit more colourfull.
But on the other hand it would totaly suck for peacefull players with slow ships. Imaginge a trader with a unengineered T9 doing a-b-a trading and having to fly another 5 minutes per trip. Certainly not entertaining.

In regard to the whole sc travel dangers:
I never understood why security vessels don't interdict wanted vessel. I can see the wanted status in sc, so they can as well.
Flying around a system where you are wanted should get you pulled over by the cops really fast... as long as its a high security system.
Same if you are hostile.
On the other hand flying through an anarchy should be really dangerous. There shouldn't be just a random pirate npc, there should be a whole gang coming after you if your're hauling something precious.

 

[Faded Glory]

NPCs pose no challenge spawned in missions. NPC interdictions are easy to avoid in nearly all ships, and as long as the larger ships can withstand a high wakes worth of punishment are no threat.

FD have closed nearly every NPC threat area: NAVs, SC, around stations to the point of making most interactions redundant.

Yes, I agree, and I suspect, as I said, that it's intentional and FD choose not to impose NPC combat on players. But that also doesn't stop players from looking for and accepting the NPC combat that's available.

 

[Rubbernuke]

Yes, I agree, and I suspect, as I said, that it's intentional and FD choose not to impose NPC combat on players. But that also doesn't stop players from looking for and accepting the NPC combat that's available.

I find it funny that FD might not want to impose NPC combat on people in a game that has a great focus on combat, and its previous versions as well. 84 Elite was a mad dash for safety in this no mans land. Right now when I drop right into the safe NFZ or even inside the station the pursuing NPC will drop in, circle about a bit and then leave. What was its role? It added nothing dropping in other than showing FD have made a massive mistake compressing or eliminating areas that are dangerous. IMO a mission that has a possible threat (as seen in the mission text) needs to enact that threat in a credible way.

Players complain about interdiction but fail to see that by removing the need to scan NAVs for data, or having no mans land areas outside station territory FD have made missions practically impossible to lose. If FD opened up these spaces it would (or could) be an ideal way for FD to vary when and where NPCs attack- so unlike now where NPCs attack via interdiction exclusively they could instead vary when a rival appears, lowering interdictions.

 

[Hossi]

I find it funny that FD might not want to impose NPC combat on people in a game that has a great focus on combat, and its previous versions as well. 84 Elite was a mad dash for safety in this no mans land. Right now when I drop right into the safe NFZ or even inside the station the pursuing NPC will drop in, circle about a bit and then leave. What was its role? It added nothing dropping in other than showing FD have made a massive mistake compressing or eliminating areas that are dangerous. IMO a mission that has a possible threat (as seen in the mission text) needs to enact that threat in a credible way.

Players complain about interdiction but fail to see that by removing the need to scan NAVs for data, or having no mans land areas outside station territory FD have made missions practically impossible to lose. If FD opened up these spaces it would (or could) be an ideal way for FD to vary when and where NPCs attack- so unlike now where NPCs attack via interdiction exclusively they could instead vary when a rival appears, lowering interdictions.

Why not make it dependend on system security?
Trading legal commodities in a high security system should be very safe. Where I live, the biggest thread for truckers is falling asleep while driving.
Traveling trough a low sec or anarchy system should be dangerous but profitable. (Like driving a truck full of cocaine trough Columbia)
Thats way players could decide how much danger they want

Edit: Why not make drop out distance depending on system security as well? Would be a bit unrealistic, so what?

 

[Charonys]

I'm not against adding additional risk by introducing the extra distance before one can enter the NFZ - but this mainly provides content for gankers and frustration for victims.

If it would be possible to design this in a way that results in some sort of benefit for both sides of the table, I'd be happy to support such an idea. Otherwise, it will only cater to a specific group of players while abandoning others. And while that sounds not that bad, it's a rather self-centered thing to ask for; in general, such changes only hurt the community long-term. Currently, people are already upset about any PvP content they are forced into (some just love open, but not the ganking) - more ganking potential would make things worse. And the typical "can't deal with it, then it's not the game for you" or "just play solo" really aren't constructive (or mature) answers either.

More risk doesn't have to be beneficial for victims per se, but there should be some sort of positive reward if a player manages to escape. Surviving is not enough.

So maybe instead of just focusing on how this would be great for PvP, how about also coming up with ideas that will provide something for the hunted?

Good game design is about creating balance. If risks are increased and escaping is made more difficult, there needs to be something in return to look forward to.

Plus, sending people to solo will only reduce content for PvP players. If everyone heads to solo because open becomes a pain, long-term such a change didn't bring the chance one was hoping for and resources have been wasted for a "what if" idea that wasn't implemented properly.

Take a look at other games like EVE, where ganking popular stations (in particular suicide ganking) has become such a pain that it has driven people away from the game, ultimately reducing the amount of "content" - so while a few had fun for a while, overall they are dealing with the same issue once more: lack of content (aka players to kill). In the case of EVE it was always part of the game, but this is mainly to show that people tend to shoot themselves in the foot when they want something so badly that they don't care how it impacts others who do not enjoy that particular playstyle.

If you want people to play in open and still deal with the increased risk, you need to offer something in return to make that risk worthwhile. Otherwise, they will just go back to solo and you won't have anyone to kill (which seems to be the main incentive for this suggestion).

 

[Faded Glory]

I find it funny that FD might not want to impose NPC combat on people in a game that has a great focus on combat, and its previous versions as well. 84 Elite was a mad dash for safety in this no mans land. Right now when I drop right into the safe NFZ or even inside the station the pursuing NPC will drop in, circle about a bit and then leave. What was its role? It added nothing dropping in other than showing FD have made a massive mistake compressing or eliminating areas that are dangerous. IMO a mission that has a possible threat (as seen in the mission text) needs to enact that threat in a credible way.

Well they have in the past (remember when engineering required commodities, and carrying them guaranteed an attack from an Elite ranked NPC), and they've seemingly moved away from doing it. I'd guess because they have metrics that showed it wasn't popular, and they want people to buy and play the game.

I used to play FE:2, as opposed to the original Elite, and for sure a drop into an anarchy system (Riedquat) guaranteed being attacked multiple times. Frankly, that was the only reason to go there. But there are differences between the two games, not least the fact that in the old game you simply saved your progress often. It was rarely 'punishing' when the game destroyed you.

Players complain about interdiction but fail to see that by removing the need to scan NAVs for data, or having no mans land areas outside station territory FD have made missions practically impossible to lose. If FD opened up these spaces it would (or could) be an ideal way for FD to vary when and where NPCs attack- so unlike now where NPCs attack via interdiction exclusively they could instead vary when a rival appears, lowering interdictions.

Again, I'm guessing that they don't want failing a mission to be a common outcome as players have invested time in playing the game and they don't want to punish them for that.

I don't disagree that having the possibility for an NPC to attack outside SC would add variety - they do already in fact, it's not unusual for a pirate to drop into the vicinity of the station immediately after you do, and there's nothing stopping the player hanging about and helping system security destroy them, just have to be careful not to let yourself get dragged into the no fire zone.

But again, I'm guessing that they don't want to impose combat on players who simply aren't interested in it. Whether that's right or wrong, whether it's catering to the 'lowest common denominator' is arguable. It's a game, many people play it simply for fun, not for an edge of the seat adrenaline rush. And it doesn't alter the fact that if a player does want combat against NPC's, there's generally nothing stopping them from finding it and engaging in it.

Honestly, my immersion is ruined more by the fact that only about 1 in 10 Elite ranked delivery missions seem to even spawn an incoming enemy alert which seems wrong. Why is a faction asking me to deliver some stuff one jump away and paying between 4 and 6 million credits when nothing happens?

 

[enonymous]

Not an accurate description. By moving the dropout zone further away and reducing the NFZ, you would have an ideal area for:

NPCs spawned in missions to intercept you in real space (either pirates or mercs wanting to kill you)

General NPC pirate spawns (perhaps linked to states, fluctuating)

A legitimate space for PvP piracy

A legitimate space for Powerplay NPCs to attack / Open Powerplay

Help prevent bots (because NPC pirates will be about making autopilot risky)

Gives purpose to engineering like drag drives, extra defenses (minimizes min / maxing)

And for those that take care of NPCs before heading to the station, you just have more dead time. Let's say I take cargo missions taking me to 10 stations and kill all the pirates before heading to the station. That's my normal game play. Now I have to deal with 30 extra seconds of boosting each time I dock because you're upset that people do powerplay in solo. No. I shouldn't be punished with more screensaver because you're afraid of some boogieman in solo messing with your game.

I get it. You really, really hate people that fly shieldless or whatever. That's fine. You do you. Figure out methods without adding a time suck or at least try to add a benefit to dealing with it.

Get rid of the no fire zone for all I care. No problem. Make NPC interdiction a nightmare. Cool. Tougher NPCs? I'm game. You know how missions always send anacondas? How about sending 2 FDLs instead? I'd struggle with that, but ok. Take 20 missions. I'd be surprised if 10 send pirates after you. Make it closer to 15 (I want the mats). Don't add more waiting. There's far too much dead time already in the game; stop trying to make it worse.