Fix Piracy by making Commodity Trading more risky by increasing purchase prices.

[Dragsham]

I would add that the bubble and colonias systems with medium to high security, should be increasingly harder if not impossible in some cases, to commit piracy. Makes sense. Sol for example.

 

[Ettanin]

Frontier chose not to have players drop either cargo or materials on destruction - as I expect to do otherwise would have turned player ships, even empty ones, into loot piñatas.

I actually mean by hatchbreaker.

 

[Robert Maynard]

I actually mean by hatchbreaker.

I suspect that the time taken to accrue materials / data, and the fact that they are not in "normal" ship storage, i.e. they survive destruction (again likely because of the time taken to accrue materials / data), meant that players being able to leech materials from other players was ruled out pretty quickly.

 

[V'larr]

That depends on how different players enjoy the game - if some players like trading and, as a result of an increased NPC challenge proposed by a subset of the player-base, the game was made the game less fun for them then they may play less, if at all.

I am a player that likes trading. That's where my experience comes from with NPC challenge - which may as well not exist, in the current status quo. A great majority of advice handed out, currently, to new players getting into trading is "jump into a shieldless Type 9 as soon as possible".

We are on the opposite end of the spectrum of possibilities from any sort of danger of "challenge gating".

 

[V'larr]

A proposal is not a negotiation where those not in favour are under any obligation to compromise their position - those proposing change have nothing to offer except a reduction in scope of demand.

Nonsense.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Nonsense.

That's one opinion.

 

[DemiserofD]

That's one opinion.

I would say that both sides are equally responsible for negotiation. If either side is unwilling to adapt to the desires of the other, it makes them seem unreasonable, and weakens their stance in the eyes of onlookers.

Personally, if someone is unwilling to change their opinion, even when their complaints have been answered, making it clear that they are unreasonable, I see no need to further indulge that person with discussion. At that point, they are just wasting everyone's time.

 

[Robert Maynard]

I would say that both sides are equally responsible for negotiation. If either side is unwilling to adapt to the desires of the other, it makes them seem unreasonable, and weakens their stance in the eyes of onlookers.

Except that it's not a negotiation - it's a discussion regarding a proposal that benefits the proposer in some way and may adversely affect other players (who are most often disregarded by the proposer, as it is in their interest to do so in the promotion of their proposal). A simple "no, thanks" may suffice as a response to such a proposal - as there's no requirement on any player to support in any way a proposal made by another player.

There's no requirement for anyone to "negotiate" - as no-one is in a position to actually offer anything in terms of changes to the game - that's in Frontier's gift alone. Nor is there any requirement for anyone to compromise from their position. As players, we don't all want the same things nor would we all find particular changes to be an improvement to our game - the only thing we may have in common is that we play the same game.

Personally, if someone is unwilling to change their opinion, even when their complaints have been answered, making it clear that they are unreasonable, I see no need to further indulge that person with discussion. At that point, they are just wasting everyone's time.

Whether the complaints have been answered satisfactorily is a matter of opinion, which likely depends on which side of the discussion the participant sits - and those making the proposals may be just as guilty of ignoring those who don't agree with the proposal.

 

[DemiserofD]

Except that it's not a negotiation - it's a discussion regarding a proposal that benefits the proposer in some way and may adversely affect other players (who are most often disregarded by the proposer, as it is in their interest to do so in the promotion of their proposal). A simple "no, thanks" may suffice as a response to such a proposal - as there's no requirement on any player to support in any way a proposal made by another player.

There's no requirement for anyone to "negotiate" - as no-one is in a position to actually offer anything in terms of changes to the game - that's in Frontier's gift alone. Nor is there any requirement for anyone to compromise from their position. As players, we don't all want the same things nor would we all find particular changes to be an improvement to our game - the only thing we may have in common is that we play the same game.

Whether the complaints have been answered satisfactorily is a matter of opinion, which likely depends on which side of the discussion the participant sits - and those making the proposals may be just as guilty of ignoring those who don't agree with the proposal.

I'll agree with you on one thing; it's a contest to sway the developers minds. But that doesn't mitigate the anti-change sides responsibility to make a rational counter-argument. Very much the contrary, in fact; the advantage always lies on the pro change side, because changing the game is the developers job. Change will happen, it's simply a matter of where and how. If people don't want the game to change, it's their responsibility to make a solid and well-founded argument against this change, in particular.

If their standpoint is against change in general, then their viewpoints must be ignored by default for the developers to do their job.

 

[Robert Maynard]

I'll agree with you on one thing; it's a contest to sway the developers minds.

Of course it is - it's a form of lobbying, except there's no guarantee that it's seen nor taken particular notice of. Noting that players have been lobbying Frontier to make fundamental changes to the shared nature of the galaxy on-and-off for well over eight years.

But that doesn't mitigate the anti-change sides responsibility to make a rational counter-argument. Very much the contrary, in fact; the advantage always lies on the pro change side, because changing the game is the developers job.

That would seem to be trying to suggest that if a "rational counter-argument" is not in place in each proposal thread that there's hope that there's an increased likelihood of implementation - not that the proponents of change get to decide what constitutes a "rational counter-argument".

Change will happen, it's simply a matter of where and how.

Of course.

If people don't want the game to change, it's their responsibility to make a solid and well-founded argument against this change, in particular.

Maybe, if the responsent to the proposal cares to offer more than a simple "I wouldn't like that" - and the proposer is not the adjudicator as to what constitutes a "solid and well-founded argument".

If their standpoint is against change in general, then their viewpoints must be ignored by default for the developers to do their job.

Of course - however I doubt that any player is against change in general - just not in favour of changes that would have a likelihood of arbitrarily making the game less fun for subsets of the player-base. Noting that those in favour of changes that would benefit are themselves a subset of the player-base.

 

[DemiserofD]

Of course it is - it's a form of lobbying, except there's no guarantee that it's seen nor taken particular notice of. Noting that players have been lobbying Frontier to make fundamental changes to the shared nature of the galaxy on-and-off for well over eight years.

That would seem to be trying to suggest that if a "rational counter-argument" is not in place in each proposal thread that there's hope that there's an increased likelihood of implementation - not that the proponents of change get to decide what constitutes a "rational counter-argument".

Of course.

Maybe, if the responsent to the proposal cares to offer more than a simple "I wouldn't like that" - and the proposer is not the adjudicator as to what constitutes a "solid and well-founded argument".

Of course - however I doubt that any player is against change in general - just not in favour of changes that would have a likelihood of arbitrarily making the game less fun for subsets of the player-base. Noting that those in favour of changes that would benefit are themselves a subset of the player-base.

I'm absolutely suggesting that if there is no rational counter arguments, a suggestion has a greater chance of happening. Of course, no single suggestion has very high odds of being implemented, simply because it's impossible to do everything that's suggested, but on the whole, unless you mean to say that all discussion is essentially meaningless, and the developers only read the first post and to nothing else, then yes, absolutely, the side with a better argument will tend to achieve greater success in their goal.

As far as benefiting one portion of the player base at the expense of another is concerned, I don't think it's possible to make a suggestion without hurting someone. Even something as simple as a new Mission type can reduce the proportion of the other Mission types, harming everyone who enjoys them to some extent.

The real question isn't whether or not someone is being hurt, because that's a certainty, but rather if it's a significant portion of the population, and if that hurt is meaningful. In the case of a new mission type, for example, that minor hurt would obviously be disregarded as irrelevant relative to the much larger benefit offered by the new Mission type.

 

[Robert Maynard]

I'm absolutely suggesting that if there is no rational counter arguments, a suggestion has a greater chance of happening. Of course, no single suggestion has very high odds of being implemented, simply because it's impossible to do everything that's suggested, but on the whole, unless you mean to say that all discussion is essentially meaningless, and the developers only read the first post and to nothing else, then yes, absolutely, the side with a better argument will tend to achieve greater success in their goal.

Engaging in discussion relating to an unsolicited proposal for change to the game may or may not, ultimately, be meaningless - as there's no guarantee that any given proposal would even be considered for implementation - with or without counter arguments.

As far as benefiting one portion of the player base at the expense of another is concerned, I don't think it's possible to make a suggestion without hurting someone. Even something as simple as a new Mission type can reduce the proportion of the other Mission types, harming everyone who enjoys them to some extent.

The real question isn't whether or not someone is being hurt, because that's a certainty, but rather if it's a significant portion of the population, and if that hurt is meaningful. In the case of a new mission type, for example, that minor hurt would obviously be disregarded as irrelevant relative to the much larger benefit offered by the new Mission type.

Indeed - and, as players, we don't have sufficient information to assess the size of the subset of the player-base that may be adversely affected by any given proposal.

 

[DemiserofD]

Engaging in discussion relating to an unsolicited proposal for change to the game may or may not, ultimately, be meaningless - as there's no guarantee that any given proposal would even be considered for implementation - with or without counter arguments.

Indeed - and, as players, we don't have sufficient information to assess the size of the subset of the player-base that may be adversely affected by any given proposal.

I don't know that unsolicited is entirely accurate; they did create this entire forum for the purpose of aggregating suggestions, after all. That may simply be to keep them from contaminating other places of discussion, true, but creating this area does to a certain extent invite suggestions, as well.

You are very much correct that it's hard to say exactly how many players would be harmed by Any Given suggestion, but that's exactly why using that as a rebuttal is relatively meaningless. Honestly, even if you did know exactly how many players were going to be harmed, it's almost impossible to know how many players will enjoy the content once it exists, either, so either Pro or against, it's not really meaningful.

That's why I like to stick to more concrete arguments, like technical issues with making a system more dangerous in the first place, when FSD travel makes conflicts extremely easy to avoid. A problem like that isn't up to interpretation, it's simple and factual, and if it exists, it either needs to be dealt with in the premise of the suggestion, or the suggestion fails.

 

[Robert Maynard]

You are very much correct that it's hard to say exactly how many players would be harmed by Any Given suggestion, but that's exactly why using that as a rebuttal is relatively meaningless. Honestly, even if you did know exactly how many players were going to be harmed, it's almost impossible to know how many players will enjoy the content once it exists, either, so either Pro or against, it's not really meaningful.

Which, when focusing on what could be done, sidesteps the perhaps more important question of should it be done.

That's why I like to stick to more concrete arguments, like technical issues with making a system more dangerous in the first place, when FSD travel makes conflicts extremely easy to avoid. A problem like that isn't up to interpretation, it's simple and factual, and if it exists, it either needs to be dealt with in the premise of the suggestion, or the suggestion fails.

Whether it's a problem to be solved in the first place is also a matter of opinion.

 

[DemiserofD]

Which, when focusing on what could be done, sidesteps the perhaps more important question of should it be done.

Much to the contrary, the two are inexorably linked. From a development standpoint, a good addition is one that makes the game better in many ways, while making it worse in few. If the game becomes better, more people will buy it on average, and that pays for your development time.

This ties fundamentally into the basic Arguments for change. Suggestions attempt to demonstrate why they will achieve the maximum good with the minimum bad. They are, essentially, a sales pitch, trying to convince them why moving their company in a given direction would be good for their fiscal returns.

And just like a sales pitch, you ultimately cannot truly know the results before you do it. Polls only go so far, and they are banned here, anyway, so you really can't bring popular opinion into it. Which is why, in absence of that data, you instead focus on the technical aspects. Will the advertisement fit on the sign? Will it conform to Legal standards? Can it be done economically?

Those are the nitty gritty details that Merit discussion, not wild Mass guessing about whether or not the general population will like it.

The same economical Viewpoint can be used to analyze existing content, as well. After all, significant development work has already gone into creating piracy, development work that is currently largely going ignored. If that existing effort can be made profitable with a minimum of additional effort, then you can get a much larger return on your investment, compared to creating something entirely new. Economically speaking, that's a no brainer.

 

[Ettanin]

After all, significant development work has already gone into creating piracy, development work that is currently largely going ignored.

Ask yourself the question: How many do piracy? How many do trading?

Nerfing trading in favor of piracy will backfire. Your suggestion lobbies for too many drawbacks and has too many side effects.

The real key to making players want to engage in potential pvp scenarios is keeping them prepared for it.

Your agenda is not to improve PvE piracy but to strongarm people into victim roles. This is not how you get people to do less popular content.

 

[Northpin]

A great majority of advice handed out, currently, to new players getting into trading is "jump into a shieldless Type 9 as soon as possible".

That's nonsense.
Do the trading in non-shielded T9 and sooner or later you will lose it.
Or if you are really brave, stack 10-15 supply/delivery missions and then fly an non-shielded T9... then see if you survive that unwinnable interdiction that will happen sooner or later

 

[[VR] Mad Mike]

The real key to making players want to engage in potential pvp scenarios is keeping them prepared for it.

not at all. it's all about FD knowing the demographic they are trying to sell too and marketing it honestly as well as the players (customers) doing their homework and buying a game that ticks their boxes. (I dont think either party is 100% blameless here)
prepared or not PvP is just not something I have any interest in doing in the elite main game. Its PvP "optional" was a major influencer for me back in kickstarter (who am i kidding... if i am honest i was always going to get elite 4, i had been waiting for it for years ........... BUT it is the difference i guess between a £20 early bird copy of the game punt vs the - for me - large amount i did kick in....... I am still sour about Star Citizen and how they bait and switched their "optional private servers and PvP slider" AFTER I kicked in for it and went past the point of refund.

I fully support improving piracy ...... PvE piracy , and if that improves PvP piracy as well then fantastic... win win, but I don't want to see the game "encouraging " PvP (because to encourage PvP specifically would likely be seen to be strong arming by other players

 

[V'larr]

That's nonsense.
Do the trading in non-shielded T9 and sooner or later you will lose it.
Or if you are really brave, stack 10-15 supply/delivery missions and then fly an non-shielded T9... then see if you survive that unwinnable interdiction that will happen sooner or later

It's not nonsense. You can 100% fly shieldless T9 without fear of losing it at the moment.

Obviously stacking missions produces very different results, but even that can be dealt with.

Again, we are nowhere remotely near being in a situation that calls for being fearful of challenge gating for trading activities.

 

[V'larr]

Ask yourself the question: How many do piracy? How many do trading?

Nerfing trading in favor of piracy will backfire. Your suggestion lobbies for too many drawbacks and has too many side effects.

Your agenda is not to improve PvE piracy but to strongarm people into victim roles. This is not how you get people to do less popular content.

That is your own personal take, not the OP's agenda. I don't recall seeing a nerf to trading in the thread (even though it would probably be deserved in several respects). At the least, I can agree with concern over side effects.