I agree with this, the current system I think is fine, you have two options, run or fight, I don't have an issue with it, Interdiction is a crime unless performed by a law enforcer, so you do it, you break the law and become wanted with all that's associated with, unless your a bounty hunter and the ship being interdicted is wanted, same rules apply though, it ain't broke Imo, so don't fix it, because folk think its unfair...
Design 101 - Players must ALWAYS have choice to avoid or run instead of fight
- Thread starter Yokai
- Start date
I agree with this, the current system I think is fine, you have two options, run or fight, I don't have an issue with it, Interdiction is a crime unless performed by a law enforcer, so you do it, you break the law and become wanted with all that's associated with, unless your a bounty hunter and the ship being interdicted is wanted, same rules apply though, it ain't broke Imo, so don't fix it, because folk think its unfair...
my 2 cent is don't like the idea to be forced by anyone them mechanics are just wrong !
everyone plays the game differently pirates traders or just trying to get enough for a better ship..... like most the smaller ships are
fight or run ! should be a choice ! not a law you must fight
the bigger (better equipped max out ships)pirates will always prey on the weak smaller ships that are trying to buy a better ship so for new players its a no win game
everyone plays the game differently pirates traders or just trying to get enough for a better ship..... like most the smaller ships are
fight or run ! should be a choice ! not a law you must fight
the bigger (better equipped max out ships)pirates will always prey on the weak smaller ships that are trying to buy a better ship so for new players its a no win game
I'm sorry I don't get it....
During the beta, interdictions were unavoidable, you got tagged and were sucked into combat. I'm not going to read through all the pages here, but....
You actually can avoid them....
1) pay attention to your sensor screen, they have to be behind you in order to interdict.
2) Follow the blue escape vector, that's your avoidance.
3) Submit to the interdiction, and then boost away, change the FSD and off you go.
During the beta, interdictions were unavoidable, you got tagged and were sucked into combat. I'm not going to read through all the pages here, but....
You actually can avoid them....
1) pay attention to your sensor screen, they have to be behind you in order to interdict.
2) Follow the blue escape vector, that's your avoidance.
3) Submit to the interdiction, and then boost away, change the FSD and off you go.
Here is the bottom line as far as i am concerned:
Trading ships are generally not capable of taking down combat ships. They are ponderous and slow. Killing a T9 with a combat specced cobra/asp is not a demonstration of combat skill, it is akin to a ferrari beating an MPV in a drag race. So when a trader is interdicted there is no prospect of "winning" a combat match up unless the pirate is ridiculously incompetent.
As matters stand there is a reasonable prospect of the trader escaping. This is balanced. There is also a strong possibilty of the trader being damaged or destroyed.
Unfortunately there is no mechanism whereby "negotiations" could take place and traders have little realistic option other than to run immediately. anything else is stupid since the likelihood is that otherwise you will be destroyed.
Trade ships are not looking to get into combat with combat ships - simply because they know they will lose. Not because they think the pirates are better pilots, because they think that the pirates have an unreasonable ship advantage.
OP is stating that if the current situation is changed, so that escape becomes unlikely, traders will not remain in open. Because they cannot realistically prevent being interdicted - since the radar does not reliably show up the interdicting ship and allow them to avoid interdiction and because in those circumstances interdiction would mean probably getting destroyed with no ability to avoid it. I agree - that is what will happen.
There needs to be a "skill" game so that both parties have some prospect of sucess.
For a start the interdiction mini game should be equalised so that a trader has as much chance of winning as the interdicter - for the purposes of that game the two ships should be equally manouverable - so a T9 should be able to follow the vector as easily as the interdictor. That way the more skilled pilot wins.
Alternatively losing the mini game (or submitting) could present the trader with an option: Stay and fight or drop 10 cargo cannisters and remain in supercruise with the interdictor dropping into the instance with the cargo cannisters. Perhaps there could be a "decoy" utility mount which dropped a "decoy" into normal space with the pirate and permitted the trader to continue - with the decoy being expensive in terms of ammunition and being scoopable for a reasonable profit for the pirate.
Third alternative: PVP flags of some kind, or perhaps zones of pvp space. I guess this basically would mean greater security response.
Of course there remains the current fourth alternative: solo.
Trading ships are generally not capable of taking down combat ships. They are ponderous and slow. Killing a T9 with a combat specced cobra/asp is not a demonstration of combat skill, it is akin to a ferrari beating an MPV in a drag race. So when a trader is interdicted there is no prospect of "winning" a combat match up unless the pirate is ridiculously incompetent.
As matters stand there is a reasonable prospect of the trader escaping. This is balanced. There is also a strong possibilty of the trader being damaged or destroyed.
Unfortunately there is no mechanism whereby "negotiations" could take place and traders have little realistic option other than to run immediately. anything else is stupid since the likelihood is that otherwise you will be destroyed.
Trade ships are not looking to get into combat with combat ships - simply because they know they will lose. Not because they think the pirates are better pilots, because they think that the pirates have an unreasonable ship advantage.
OP is stating that if the current situation is changed, so that escape becomes unlikely, traders will not remain in open. Because they cannot realistically prevent being interdicted - since the radar does not reliably show up the interdicting ship and allow them to avoid interdiction and because in those circumstances interdiction would mean probably getting destroyed with no ability to avoid it. I agree - that is what will happen.
There needs to be a "skill" game so that both parties have some prospect of sucess.
For a start the interdiction mini game should be equalised so that a trader has as much chance of winning as the interdicter - for the purposes of that game the two ships should be equally manouverable - so a T9 should be able to follow the vector as easily as the interdictor. That way the more skilled pilot wins.
Alternatively losing the mini game (or submitting) could present the trader with an option: Stay and fight or drop 10 cargo cannisters and remain in supercruise with the interdictor dropping into the instance with the cargo cannisters. Perhaps there could be a "decoy" utility mount which dropped a "decoy" into normal space with the pirate and permitted the trader to continue - with the decoy being expensive in terms of ammunition and being scoopable for a reasonable profit for the pirate.
Third alternative: PVP flags of some kind, or perhaps zones of pvp space. I guess this basically would mean greater security response.
Of course there remains the current fourth alternative: solo.
I usually find if I'm properly paying attention number 1 works for me. Occasionally over the weekend I got caught out but only when I was a bit pished and looking at another PC - so I don't know if they just popped out of nowhere (as some people report) or I just didn't see them coming.
Sometimes the follow the escape vector does seem to behave erratically.
What is clear from those comments by Sandro is that this is something that will be given a fresh coat of looking at some point in the future. It also seems clear that they appreciate that this could be a controversial matter and they are going to weigh up the options carefully before doing anything, that is sound thinking as I see it.
If this isn't done right I can see more traders leaving Open (because lets face it the vast majority of contentious interdictions are the PvP ones) and far more cases of combat logging. I think that in order to modify interdictions the logging exploit will need to be addressed at the same time. All in all it sounds like a hell of a lot of work to me.
If this isn't done right I can see more traders leaving Open (because lets face it the vast majority of contentious interdictions are the PvP ones) and far more cases of combat logging. I think that in order to modify interdictions the logging exploit will need to be addressed at the same time. All in all it sounds like a hell of a lot of work to me.
Hello,
here you can read my thoughts about what tpo change:
https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php?t=114909&page=12&p=1784964&viewfull=1#post1784964
One thing that bothers me still.
I always read from pirates: 'Play my style of gaming or leave'
I never read: ' How can we accomplish a compromise, that let us both with fun to play'
100% agree.
here you can read my thoughts about what tpo change:
https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php?t=114909&page=12&p=1784964&viewfull=1#post1784964
One thing that bothers me still.
I always read from pirates: 'Play my style of gaming or leave'
I never read: ' How can we accomplish a compromise, that let us both with fun to play'
Here's my issue with it....
Traders can't win against a fighter, I get that, you aren't supposed to. Given the amount of credits/hour they make they should have some kind of risk here. Especially now with the BH nerf in full effect. If you can't be bothered to have "some" limited defenses and pay attention to your sensor, then well, I'm sorry you're going to have issues.
I think I saw somewhere mention of a PVP flag, I'm sorry, but this is the wrong game for you. The whole point of this game is to survive in a ruthless galaxy, and while I hate to be this harsh, if you want to trade with no risk, then might I suggest Euro Truck.
This constant, "I can't win in my trader vs. a fighter argument" is getting old. You aren't supposed to win, and as pirates we should have the ability to attempt to take your stuff. There has to be a balance in risk vs. reward, and currently it's completely out of whack. I apologize for being a bit harsh, but this stuff is getting old.
Traders can't win against a fighter, I get that, you aren't supposed to. Given the amount of credits/hour they make they should have some kind of risk here. Especially now with the BH nerf in full effect. If you can't be bothered to have "some" limited defenses and pay attention to your sensor, then well, I'm sorry you're going to have issues.
I think I saw somewhere mention of a PVP flag, I'm sorry, but this is the wrong game for you. The whole point of this game is to survive in a ruthless galaxy, and while I hate to be this harsh, if you want to trade with no risk, then might I suggest Euro Truck.
This constant, "I can't win in my trader vs. a fighter argument" is getting old. You aren't supposed to win, and as pirates we should have the ability to attempt to take your stuff. There has to be a balance in risk vs. reward, and currently it's completely out of whack. I apologize for being a bit harsh, but this stuff is getting old.
Thank you for finding these. They are exactly the dev comments I was talking about in the OP to this thread. I had trouble finding them myself (I wish the forum search would let us search for posts by named devs).
So, let's look at the following _particular_ statements by Sandro. This is where I think they get it _fundamentally_ wrong from a design and player retention standpoint. Highlighting is mine for emphasis. I'm going to comment on a few different aspects of Sandro's thinking:
I'll just point out here that Sandro already knows that the interdicting player (or NPC) has a _material advantage_ over the interdicted player. This is a fundamental PvP imbalance right from the start.
I'll also remind Sandro that even when properly equipped with shields and a crap ton of turrets, along with PvP know-how to keep the interdicting ship in range of all turrets with 95% uptime, any _NPC_ ship from an Asp upwards can inflict at least 12% hull damage on a Python "trader with teeth" configuration, and that's 200K in repair cost right there. 250K if I put an A-class powerplant in the ship (everything else is already A-classed) Shields get stripped quickly, and hull damage happens. Now: against a _player_ in a viper or cobra, you can expect the same hull damage or more if you stick around to fight like a porcupine. Get it, Sandro? THERE is NO winning or break even scenario for a trader in your vision of lopsided, imbalanced PvP. The only winning or break even scenario is to successfully run away before shields are lost. Even in solo mode.
Isolated summary by Sandro for emphasis. This is fundamentally imbalanced and a total, complete LOSING proposition for traders. This is every bit as bad as the fundamental pirate-trader imbalance in ArcheAge. And if you want to see how well that's working out for Trion Worlds, reach out to them, developer to developer, and ask them how happy their playerbase is and how their financials are doing these days.
Now you're on the right track, but this _directly_ contradicts what you've stated above. You have _contradictory_ design goals at play here.
Where in all this line of thinking is the notion of "what does the pirate risk losing versus what the player risks losing"? Right now, all risk is on the trader, and zero risk is on the pirate:
* The pirate is flying a smaller, cheaper ship so their monetary loss from a fight is much smaller than the trader.
* The trader stands to also lose their investment in cargo cost. What does the pirate stand to lose to balance this cost risk?
A complete viper loss is 6 minutes of tradiing to recoup for the average player in an A-classed Viper, who also has a T6 or Asp on the side for cargo hauling. Meanwhile the trader in an A-classed Python is looking at 102 minutes of trading to recoup the monentary loss of the ship replacement alone. Add another 60 minutes on top of that to recoup the loss of lost cargo. And the numbers get WORSE from there for a T9 or Anaconda.
This is utterly, fundamentally imbalanced.
I have no problem with this design principle as long as the risk/reward is BALANCED for both parties. Right now, the game is nowhere near that state
Last edited:
I have to disagree,
I'm not a pirate, I usually play as a BH, that being said, it's not "play my style or leave" its play the game as it's intended. It plainly states its a ruthless galaxy, I don't know what's so hard to understand about this.
You have traders, and you have pirates, that's just how it is.
In short: Play the game like i want it to be played or leave.
Is that anything you can think about a solution?
Why not say: Hey CMDRs lets think about the way to get closer together?
Edit:
@drwoo
And never forget - right now, the 'Dangerous' stands just for Traders. But it is also ment to stand for pirates!
Last edited:
Bear in mind this thread is not just about Open mode. Yes, you can see _player_ ships and there are indications they are trying to interdict you. That's great. But there is no such visibility/warning/indication in Solo Mode (or Group Mode) for NPC pirates (or cops). Radar looks clear then BAM you're in an interdiction attempt.
The best pirates often had big ships thoughnever good choice quoting history when you are not sure...
Just like the game pirates in sloops and pinnace were near impossible to catch but couldnt carry much loot. Pirates who moved up to galleons were truelly a terror but didnt last long.
I think the game has this pretty nailed.
Um yeah, the most successful pirates had big ships.
But they didn't become successful because they had big ships.
They got big ships because they were successful with smaller ships.
And they got the big ships by boarding and taking the ships.
So the whole "get a bigger ship to pirate" is still fundamentally flawed.
Define 'Succesful!'
Any of them got sunk, hung up or tortured to death. If you consider this succesful....
Very nice suggestions.
I'd fully back this.
- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -
SOLO /10char
Yokai,
If I could rep you again I would.
IMO the most important thing Sandro seems to be missing about imposing a system where hull damage is a best case scenario:
"The only sensible way for traders to assess how well they did is to consider how much they lost. And in a nutshell, this is where we have to make sure that traders can *if they wish* alter their ships to mitigate the loss caused by loss. Tough shields, armour, point defence, weapons - these all make a difference. For sure it's no guarantee that the trader can defeat the combat ship, but - if we get the numbers to the right place - it may well mean the difference between some hull/module damage and complete ship loss, depending on the equipment and *how well* it's used."is that it will push traders into solo/mobius while they are trading - which is lose/lose for the game, pirates and the living galaxy. It will mean you don't see CMDRs in T9s anymore, just flying about in cobra/viper/asp etc. Why would you bother flying around in what the game is explicitly telling you is just a loot pinata with no chance to fight back - especially when there is no benefit to you from doing it and you can as easily play in solo/mobius.
If I could rep you again I would.
IMO the most important thing Sandro seems to be missing about imposing a system where hull damage is a best case scenario:
"The only sensible way for traders to assess how well they did is to consider how much they lost. And in a nutshell, this is where we have to make sure that traders can *if they wish* alter their ships to mitigate the loss caused by loss. Tough shields, armour, point defence, weapons - these all make a difference. For sure it's no guarantee that the trader can defeat the combat ship, but - if we get the numbers to the right place - it may well mean the difference between some hull/module damage and complete ship loss, depending on the equipment and *how well* it's used."is that it will push traders into solo/mobius while they are trading - which is lose/lose for the game, pirates and the living galaxy. It will mean you don't see CMDRs in T9s anymore, just flying about in cobra/viper/asp etc. Why would you bother flying around in what the game is explicitly telling you is just a loot pinata with no chance to fight back - especially when there is no benefit to you from doing it and you can as easily play in solo/mobius.
I should have been clearer - I was in open - but these were NPC interdictions at the weekend - not player - only had a player get close once since Gamma.
You have to really try to get interdicted by a player.
ETA - I should probably add I'm playing 1920 x something res on a 27" monitor - I guess the screen could be much more crowded on smaller resolutions.
Last edited:
Really? is it really that dangerous trading, because I've done it and made a ton of credits doing almost nothing at all. Right now, there is hardly any risk at all trading. For a BH to make that kind of cash they have to take on elite anaconda's, I'm pretty positive that the risk in trading isn't anywhere near that level.
Um yeah, the most successful pirates had big ships.
But they didn't become successful because they had big ships.
They got big ships because they were successful with smaller ships.
And they got the big ships by boarding and taking the ships.
So the whole "get a bigger ship to pirate" is still fundamentally flawed.
but did they ? as the exploits of the past aka Luxury run at TENCHE made people millions in mins to buy these better ships or the rare trade runs before the nuke etc
But they didn't become successful because they had big ships.
They got big ships because they were successful with smaller ships.
And they got the big ships by boarding and taking the ships.
So the whole "get a bigger ship to pirate" is still fundamentally flawed.
but did they ? as the exploits of the past aka Luxury run at TENCHE made people millions in mins to buy these better ships or the rare trade runs before the nuke etc
Last edited: