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

[Rubbernuke]

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.

Now I have to deal with 30 extra seconds of boosting

What a chore. I mean, really. Is 30 seconds of boosting any different to 30 seconds in supercruise to actually open out and give the devs options as to vary NPC encounters, and help fix a load of problems? After having a tense interdiction you think you are safe and then you have to run the gauntlet because its low sec and some other pirates are hanging about?

These areas would naturally have other NPC traffic, could be a natural place for NPC T-9 trading posts (rather than have them hidden in a POI) that exist in the no mans land. You could put all manner of scenarios here as extra gameplay.

upset that people do powerplay in solo

Get over yourself. Bots hurt everyone in the BGS as well as Powerplay. FD have made missions (especially fort or prep in Powerplay) trivial with hardly any interaction required. If bots have a harder time then whats not to like? It might not solve everything but its one more thing for them to overcome.

No. I shouldn't be punished with more screensaver because you're afraid of some boogieman in solo messing with your game.

LOL! The whole of ED is a screensaver because its set up that way with large gaps of nothing. What I suggest is making a gap that the devs fill with NPCs to actually give a reason for drag drives, mission timers, pursuing pirates or bounty hunters. To actually break the tedious and predictable interdictions that make every mission the same.

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.

No, you really don't because you have a myopic view of the game. Go read what I've posted and actually think a bit.

Get rid of the no fire zone for all I care.

Thats stupid because its a necessary part of C + P.

Make NPC interdiction a nightmare.

Again- what are you on about? This idea would mean less interdictions, something people complain about much more. If an NPC can ambush you in a wider variety of places whats not to like? They might not interdict you, but instead choose to pursue you to the station. They may do everything- the bottom line is that it gives NPCs room to diferentiate between each other rather than the one interdiction and then...thats it.

Tougher NPCs? I'm game.

Variety would be good.

*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. *

And once again, read my posts and think. These spaces will be ideal for mission pirates but they will also be filled with other POI style things. Static trader POIs, other pirates, PP traffic, maybe even junk fields for mats...its not dead time unlike supercruise which is practically empty.

 

[Rubbernuke]

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?

I was thinking something like this- but, thinking it through it plays well with sec levels right now with security response times. Low sec response is 1:30 which in this situation is useless, while medium and high being shot at would have police with you quite quickly (very quickly in high security- sometimes a matter of seconds). Anarchy would for once mean anarchy and only the NFZ would be 'safe'.

 

[Rubbernuke]

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.

A ganker can shoot you through the slot from outside the stations NFZ right now with LR mods, or manipulate the speed restrictions inside the NFZ without weapons so really my ideas make no difference to how a ganker thinks or would act.

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.

The problem is that missions generally follow this pattern:

accept> take off> one interdiction> win.

There is no risk unless you fly a tub with poor SC maneuverability, which leads to boredom- if you are not challenged at least once in a while your skills don't improve.

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?

I never mentioned this exclusively for PvP, because in reality its more about PvE and making ED more like 84 Elite. ED is far too safe and sterile. Plus, in PvE if you give the pirate what he wants, you get to live. I know- actual NPC piracy!

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.

IMO and the reason why I posted this is that there currently is an imbalance. Its far to easy to never see any NPC attacker. By the time to drop to your target station the NPC will drop into the NFZ directly, fly out and then go away- whats the point? Every mission becomes the same interdiction stacking exercise.

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.

As I've pointed out, this is for PvE and from a solo perspective.

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).

Combat != Open. Increased risk != Open.

These ideas are to make missions more varied and dangerous, space more varied, help with bots, give Solo Powerplay a space where PP NPCs can actually do something, and FD a useful space for trade / mat POIs.

 

[Rubbernuke]

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.

I guess my issue is that for missions nothing actually feels 'organic'. One data drop or cargo run follows the same pattern with the only NPC interaction being an interdiction. I don't need to go to a NAV, and I don't have to think when I get to the station. ED is not punishing either in death, mainly as credits are very easy to generate for hypothetical rebuys. I've only ever once been destitute in ED, and that was in early gamma.

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.

Having a 100% (or near 100%) sucess rate is bad for the BGS, as then its super pumped for positive outcomes and is never dragged back with failures. It also sets up a strange aversion to failure and gets us to a situation like now where every hostile interaction is deemed optional, leading to boring and unchallenging missions.

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 its pointless and shockingly unprofessional looking. I can be inside the station and the drop trail goes through the dock itself. The NPC is there to challenge the player- if interdictions are to easy to evade and too monotone to have happen repeatedly, FD have to open out another area to enable NPCs to do the job. Otherwise you might as well have no NPC at all.

But again, I'm guessing that they don't want to impose combat on players who simply aren't interested in it.

If players wanted that then they'd choose not to carry cargo, or fly around inhabited space. At some point they are going to come across an NPC that wants to kill / rob them.

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.

By making basic things optional (and really basic things like NPC danger) it sets the expectation that any combat is 'bad', making it far more difficult to inject any life into the game. ED is a procedural game that relies on variables to maintain interest. If you are limiting these variables then the outcome is going to be very linear and get dull very quickly because you don't have to think about your ship or skills.

It might be that FD could have very basic cargo missions that do not have mercs (i.e. only missions with a cargo of sufficent value has them).

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?

I just want a bit of variety in how FD approach NPCs. To me endless interdictions with no other danger is a waste.

 

[Charonys]

The changes would have massive impact on open, as it would make ganking others much easier. People would be camping stations even more, because now there is a bigger time window to attack after players leave supercruise and finally can dock. For PvP, your suggested change would add lots of benefits, for the victims it would be zero benefits, only increased risks.

Again, making the game more challenging is great - but you have to take into account how it may impact other parts of the game.

To assume that such a change would only have positive impact (in this case solo PvE) is a bit naive tbh. This isn't something that will only affect solo either, even though you claim it's just to spice things up in solo. This will affect open just as much, simply because 10 km NFZ in all directions is a massive hunting ground with guaranteed targets.

And even if players build tankier ships, you can only do so much when an entire 4/4 wing is attacking you while you are trying to boost 20 km to safety.

Unless your goal is to de-populate open - in that case, a change like this would work like a charm.

 

[Rubbernuke]

The changes would have massive impact on open, as it would make ganking others much easier. People would be camping stations even more, because now there is a bigger time window to attack after players leave supercruise and finally can dock. For PvP, your suggested change would add lots of benefits, for the victims it would be zero benefits, only increased risks.

only increased risks

Thats the point- currently there is zero risk, especially in Solo mode negating most, if not all NPC challenge.

Having a bigger gap would actually make engineering like drag drives, defences etc more important, as well as also allowing for more legal player bounty hunting in these areas (which to be honest will be the same places as now, i.e. engineering bases and Shin.) PvP would not change other than its location- so called 'ganks' would happen outside stations rather than via interdictions in SC.... so no change if your ship is not up to it. For about 99% of inhabited space nothing would change in Open.

Again, making the game more challenging is great - but you have to take into account how it may impact other parts of the game.

The effect is minimal in Open, while it has multiple benefits in Solo. It also makes NPC interactions much more likely and unpredictable.

To assume that such a change would only have positive impact (in this case solo PvE) is a bit naive tbh. This isn't something that will only affect solo either, even though you claim it's just to spice things up in solo. This will affect open just as much, simply because 10 km NFZ in all directions is a massive hunting ground with guaranteed targets.

massive hunting ground with guaranteed targets

And how is that bad? Combat goes both ways and would set up a space for defensive actions as well as offensive ones- in all modes and in all features like Powerplay. It would also be an area to increase smuggling difficulty, areas for illegal trading, POIs, bounty hunting areas, piracy areas.

And even if players build tankier ships, you can only do so much when an entire 4/4 wing is attacking you while you are trying to boost 20 km to safety.

In any case, if its too much you drop to Solo, or form a wing of your own for protection. But, at least in Solo there is an actual PvE obstacle that works correctly rather than having one that is pointless and as I've stated before it sets up areas for more proper player interaction in busy areas. There are squadrons that offer protection.

Unless your goal is to de-populate open - in that case, a change like this would work like a charm.

You are being melodramatic. Nothing would really change because you would still have those 4 wing gank squads in real space rather than in supercruise interdicting you. And if thats the case, this idea gives the defender an advantage that they can low wake quickly, have security on their side (depending on sec level obviously) from the station if they can last. Or, use ships that have speed advantages like the Mamba, Clipper and any small advanced Drag Drive ship (like a Courier).

 

[Charonys]

Well, I guess my concerns are simply irrelevant then. I hope you get your way, since clearly that's all what matters to you.

PS: I'm interested in a solid discussion that is looking at pros and cons of such changes objectively - that can only happen if you take concerns seriously and avoid pushing your own agenda. The fact that you dismiss concerns (not just mine) and pretend like such a change won't have much impact on open is risible.

Again, since you seem to misunderstand: the problem is not the additional challenge, it's a skewed risk/reward ratio.

 

[Rubbernuke]

Well, I guess my concerns are simply irrelevant then. I hope you get your way, since clearly that's all what matters to you.

Your concern is not irrelevant- IMO at least its unfounded because for a ganker these zones don't really matter and that we already have the tools to overcome problems, its just now those tools can have a justified use that IMO makes the design and piloting more important. If the drop zone was larger a lot more could happen within it- currently there is hardly any areas where NPCs can oppose you on routine missions or trade runs leading to an overuse of interdictions. In edge cases traders have to drop at NAVs (or use scanners) which is something of a start, but then its back to SC and then safety. The same is true for Powerplay- if Solo is to ever be considered anything but an easy mode the PP NPCs need places to attack or oppose players fortifying or prepping. Currently they do nothing.

PS: I'm interested in a solid discussion that is looking at pros and cons of such changes objectively - that can only happen if you take concerns seriously and avoid pushing your own agenda. The fact that you dismiss concerns (not just mine) and pretend like such a change won't have much impact on open is risible.

And I've countered every one of your points, never have I dismissed anything without qualifying an answer in response.

Again, since you seem to misunderstand: the problem is not the additional challenge, it's a skewed risk/reward ratio.

And as I keep on saying- this is about redressing the balance between risk and reward by actually making the risk actually match the reward for a change. Gankers don't bother with zones, they have long range weapons and close up tactics that make all of this meaningless to them. If anything having no firm opposition predetermines the BGS as missions are almost guaranteed to succeed leading to too much win and not enough loss. This in turn makes the BGS, superpower rep and faction rep go in one direction rather than being an actual challenge and fluctuate more.

 

[badibeat]

I tend to agree on most points, but sill being quite the noob I would have a problem with this one, as I instinctively try to win interdictions:

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.

I got them half of the times I approached conflict zones. Maybe an authority vessel could drop in to scan me if I really enter the conflict zone after evading the interdiction.

 

[Rubbernuke]

I tend to agree on most points, but sill being quite the noob I would have a problem with this one, as I instinctively try to win interdictions:

I got them half of the times I approached conflict zones. Maybe an authority vessel could drop in to scan me if I really enter the conflict zone after evading the interdiction.

One way posibly would be authority not scanning innocent ships, or that they scan in set areas you can avoid. If you have notoriety, smuggling or unfriendly or hostile it would make more sense as the cops have a reason to scan you.

 

[Tenshi]

A legitimate space for PvP piracy

And we get to the part in what you are actually after. "But meh pvp!"

Player piracy doesn't exist in Open. Not once have I ever had a player ask for cargo when I was stopped doing trade runs.

 

[varonica]

One way posibly would be authority not scanning innocent ships,

Umm, how do they know a ship is innocent before they scan it?

Ok I know it's a game and the code behind the game does already know if a ship is innocent or not, but looking behind the galaxy to the code to determine if a ship is innocent or not before scanning said ship to, well determine it's legality, does sort of break an aspect of the game balance, which is that the NPC's should behave as much as possible like players and shouldn't take advantage of access to the code behind the galaxy to do things players can't, because that's like, cheating...right?

 

[Rubbernuke]

And we get to the part in what you are actually after. "But meh pvp!"

Player piracy doesn't exist in Open. Not once have I ever had a player ask for cargo when I was stopped doing trade runs.

And here I can see the usual whining from someone who isn't paying attention and is myopic to the issue at hand.

These changes are pan modal- one benefit is they provide a place for player patrols as well as PvP piracy, but that change filters through to solo and PG.

These spaces allow NPCs to actually do something, attack and pirate you, spaces for POI merchants, extra difficulty for smuggling, as well as offer opportunities for PvP piracy and for groups to defend. You could have debris clouds, USS signals, dropped cargo- all sorts here for variety.

It also means ships have to be built better to withstand attack / be faster (or gamble otherwise) and pilots have to use skills- and that autodocking is something that is a gamble rather than something you automatically do (i.e. you need to use judgement). It also plays well with C + P, with anarchy and low sec actually being dangerous places, with medium and high sec having response times that help the victim.

It also helps PP NPCs have an area to actually make some sort of impact.

So to just slap a 'PvP dur' sticker on the suggestion just shows how short sighted you are. Gankers already have SC interdiction, long range lasers, or take advantage of speeding pilots.

 

[Rubbernuke]

Umm, how do they know a ship is innocent before they scan it?

Ok I know it's a game and the code behind the game does already know if a ship is innocent or not, but looking behind the galaxy to the code to determine if a ship is innocent or not before scanning said ship to, well determine it's legality, does sort of break an aspect of the game balance, which is that the NPC's should behave as much as possible like players and shouldn't take advantage of access to the code behind the galaxy to do things players can't, because that's like, cheating...right?

I was thinking that FD turn up the ability for cops to scan ships that look shifty, or that certain areas are no-go in SC and trespassing = interdiction, or lockdowns.

But yes it does introduce a slight logical flaw.

 

[Kissamies]

Re: "Screensaver gameplay"
I support moving the SC drop points longer distance away from the stations, but to make it less boring, there should be things to do while you approach the station. Some of these come naturally, I think. For example, keeping an eye on the other ships. That Clipper turned this way and now seems to be closing distance fast. Uh oh, perhaps I should try to get the station security to help me.

Re: Properly equipped pirates
The PP traitor hunters are even worse, I think. I've come across some that didn't even have interdictors and just uselessly looped around me.

 

[leeG]

Sorry, not interested in the OP’s style of play being forced on me.

The game is a big sandbox where you can pick and choose what aspects and features you want to interact with and ignore the rest. Brilliant design as it accommodates many different play styles and allows you to control your exposure to risk.

I appreciate the OP’s desire for challenge and danger. As for me, I’m long past the need for any adrenaline rush. I’m here for the Milky Way Galaxy and to relax while puttering about in my unarmed spaceships. The game lets me do that. I wouldn’t be here if it didn’t.

So the question is how to add features and activities to provide the OP with the challenges he feels are currently missing while allowing me to continue to play the way I choose.

Shouldn’t be to hard to work it out, as long as you recognize your personal play style isn’t the only legitimate way to play the game.

o7

 

[Rubbernuke]

Sorry, not interested in the OP’s style of play being forced on me.

What style of play is that? Having NPCs or players have a space to interact with you, and for POIs / merchants etc to be present in a logical way?

The game is a big sandbox where you can pick and choose what aspects and features you want to interact with and ignore the rest. Brilliant design as it accommodates many different play styles and allows you to control your exposure to risk.

In essence you are arguing for an opt out of all danger, even when each system has clear security levels and that you are in full control of how NPCs respond to you.

I appreciate the OP’s desire for challenge and danger. As for me, I’m long past the need for any adrenaline rush. I’m here for the Milky Way Galaxy and to relax while puttering about in my unarmed spaceships. The game lets me do that. I wouldn’t be here if it didn’t.

If you are puttering about in the Milky Way this is not going to affect you. NPC pirates don't attack if you have no cargo- ships have drag drives to speed through. If you are worried about ganks a) Solo is for you b) if your ship is unarmed then you have more to worry about in SC than flying to a station because it makes no difference.

So the question is how to add features and activities to provide the OP with the challenges he feels are currently missing while allowing me to continue to play the way I choose.

What I'm suggesting is actually fixing a glaring design problem- people complain that they have too many interdictions- the cause is that this is the only way an NPC can actually try to attack you. Once you drop into a stations instance you are instantly 'safe'. If there was an alternative place where an NPC can try to ambush you, devs could then use interdictions more sparingly.

It makes Powerplay more interesting in Solo, because then you have a place for PP NPCs to properly wait and attack you. This again is not impacting your way of playing because PP NPCs only care for other pledges. No pledge: no action. If you are pledged but no merits / PP bounties: no action.

NPC pirates could then be more prevalent in anarchy systems (or linked to security levels and states like lockdown / pirate attack). If you don't have cargo then again, no impact. People would then pay attention to security levels because they determine what NPCs you face.

Shouldn’t be to hard to work it out, as long as you recognize your personal play style isn’t the only legitimate way to play the game.

o7

The problem with what you are saying is that its making all combat or NPC interactions optional- it affects things like missions, Powerplay, general cargo running or passenger hauling. The base state should be some exposure and not none. It should be fully within your control now to have no problems with any NPC if you have no cargo, don't have a bounty and are exploring / in secluded areas / pledged to a power / reputation.

So to recap: if you are not hauling cargo, running a mission with an NPC adversary, not pledged, C + P clean with no bounty hunters after you nothing will change.

 

[Skip Rockbounder]

I was thinking that FD turn up the ability for cops to scan ships that look shifty, or that certain areas are no-go in SC and trespassing = interdiction, or lockdowns.

But yes it does introduce a slight logical flaw.

I understand that some players abhor the idea of introducing yet more 'RGN' systems but the scanning of ships could benefit from such action...
: The game assesses how many smuggling missions have been successful at the station and when it hits a specific percentage fires up an increased scan period with an interest in 'suspect' vessels, these might include particular ship types known to be used by smugglers*, but would include criminal history players, especially those with smuggling on the rap sheet, so overall there would be an increase in random scanning, with a much greater chance in given ships and even more likely for known smugglers.
During these periods the NFZ could be widened to perhaps double and more 'cops' that could be assumed to be bought in from the 'system wide space' (lessening the chance of response outside on the fringes of getting help) to help in the scanning frenzy, added to this increase in difficulty the smuggling missions would increase in value for the Player and of course the NPC's as well.

Outside of the period, very few 'innocents' would be scanned, but known smugglers and 'smuggler choice vessels' would be high on the list of scan potentials.

Later on with legs, we might see ships coming in at full chat (not necessarily causing damage) high on the RNG list for being grounded for an cargo inspection!

* the list would of course be 'fluid' as the best smuggler ship changes from one to another and the daily list changes.

 

[Morbad]

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

It gives them more time to intercept and scan criminals.

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?

It gives considerably more volume of space with which avoid detection on approach and more time to plan said approach.

Many a time in the pre-release beta (and later via manual dropping, which is now more difficult) was I able to sneak into a station by loitering well outside sensor range, observing exhaust trails and weapons fire with my MkI eyeballs, and approach when potential hostiles were distracted or out of position.

Here's a manual 26km drop out from 1.2 (mid-2015) while smuggling stuff to Leesti in Open, with an AspX, while hostile CMDRs were present:

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0PxoGm6zKR0

 

[leeG]

What style of play is that? Having NPCs or players have a space to interact with you, and for POIs / merchants etc to be present in a logical way?

I treat Elite like a simulation. In aviation we do all we can to minimize risk. If commercial aviation was like elite, nobody would ever get on an airliner. The interdiction mechanic is just bonkers, but you know, game.

So I tolerate the interdictions, I maneuver to make it hard for the pirate to latch on, win the interdiction if caught and rely on arriving close to the starport for its immediate protection.

For me, extending the drop point farther from the station has no appeal.

In essence you are arguing for an opt out of all danger, even when each system has clear security levels and that you are in full control of how NPCs respond to you.

Being a sandbox game, where you blaze your own trail, one should be able to control the level on risk one is exposed to. I'd like the system security levels mean more just for that reason. Again, when assessing and controlling risk, suggesting extending the drop point farther from the station doesn't work for me.

If you are puttering about in the Milky Way this is not going to affect you. NPC pirates don't attack if you have no cargo- ships have drag drives to speed through. If you are worried about ganks a) Solo is for you b) if your ship is unarmed then you have more to worry about in SC than flying to a station because it makes no difference.

In order to putter about the Milky Way in Elite, one needs to make a living. So, yeah, I haul stuff, mine stuff, taxi people about and do the ultimate puttering of exploration. Which is why I take an interest in suggestions which may impact how I play.

What I'm suggesting is actually fixing a glaring design problem- people complain that they have too many interdictions- the cause is that this is the only way an NPC can actually try to attack you. Once you drop into a stations instance you are instantly 'safe'. If there was an alternative place where an NPC can try to ambush you, devs could then use interdictions more sparingly.

It makes Powerplay more interesting in Solo, because then you have a place for PP NPCs to properly wait and attack you. This again is not impacting your way of playing because PP NPCs only care for other pledges. No pledge: no action. If you are pledged but no merits / PP bounties: no action.

NPC pirates could then be more prevalent in anarchy systems (or linked to security levels and states like lockdown / pirate attack). If you don't have cargo then again, no impact. People would then pay attention to security levels because they determine what NPCs you face.

Fully agree, system security should mean something. It allows one to better manage risk versus rewards. I'll go with you on PP because I don't do it. Missions too.

My interest is preserving my simple gameplay by not creating more places in Elite where I can get mugged. Which I suspect you may be sympathetic with. The features of Elite I enjoy are the galaxy, station infrastructure, general eye candy and flying around in spaceships.

The problem with what you are saying is that its making all combat or NPC interactions optional- it affects things like missions, Powerplay, general cargo running or passenger hauling. The base state should be some exposure and not none. It should be fully within your control now to have no problems with any NPC if you have no cargo, don't have a bounty and are exploring / in secluded areas / pledged to a power / reputation.

So to recap: if you are not hauling cargo, running a mission with an NPC adversary, not pledged, C + P clean with no bounty hunters after you nothing will change.

As long as the game mechanics of A to B hauling and delivering Void Opals isn't changed, I'm good.