Design 101 - Players must ALWAYS have choice to avoid or run instead of fight

[Yokai]

It's only a strawman because your post missed the point in the first place. A trader has no reason to interdict any target, therefore they'll always be the target of any interdiction event. So, I'm not really sure what benefit/gain/reward a target should be getting from submitting to being interdicted. Surely it needs to ve 100% risk by design? Unless the target is actually submitting to allow the pirate to take cargo.

I remember Sandro posting about their thoughts on interdiction but I don't remember taking away the idea that FD were considering balancing interdiction submission to provide any reward to the target. Surely the only reward for the tsrget should be winning the event and escaping?

I vaguely recall his point was there's no reason to fight interdiction as a target due to the current design, which promotes submission and escape. This is not what they intended.

And all of his proposed ideas were centred about making submission an act of waving the white flag. That is, submission should be the highest risk for escape, thus rewarding targets for trying to win the event itself.

It's pretty clear what Sandro wants to achieve. And I like his line of thinking.

Every player can trade.
The fact that trading is the best money right now is irrelevant: no player is prevented from increasing their personal cash by trading.

It _is_ a strawman to argue that "because piracy is less cash flow than trading, there's your balanced risk-reward". Why? See the two statements made above. I can explain it to you, but I cannot understand it for you.

 

[BarFly]

Hello,

As I'd see it, the choice for the trader to run away should be held primarily in his ability to escape the interdiction itself. It is skill based and would suit me fine.

Can we meet somewhere to practice this skills?

 

[TeeWee]

Hello,


Can we meet somewhere to practice this skills?

I might not be a good sparring partner: I'm not particularly good at it. But PM me if you'd like, I'll see if I'm in the neighbourhood somewhere this week and I'll bring my Viper along. Practise goes both ways

 

[kapitankev]

Yes anyone can trade but the fact it's the most profitable career path isn't irrelevant.

Traders are unhappy about interdictions costing them money, but all in all they're still making money right? and in fact they're making far more than any other career path in the game. So it's no wonder you're being targeted tbh......

Interdictions should be hard to avoid, a trader is in a slow ship, a pirate is in a fast manoeuvrable ship, how could it be any other way?

It's a bitter pill to swallow if you've been making millions on your trade run but you've had it easy up till now.....you may die everynow and then and lose millions but all in all you've all been raking it in right?

It just might be that it won't be possible to do that run on your own anymore and you'll have to share out some of the profits to fighter escort. greedy traders...

 

[Jordan Cobalt]

Hello,



Pirates are not supposed to earn big money. their succes is the feeling of being free like a bird. And not locked in a small cabin hauling stuff from station to station.
Thats the game, like a pirate often say. I f you don't like it - leave.
Sorry couldn't resist.

Pirates are stealing from the biggest money maker in the game, you'd think some of the profits would rub off. I don't think piracy earn insane money, but it shouldn't be unable to earn enough to keep their ship running.

 

[BarFly]

Hello

I might not be a good sparring partner: I'm not particularly good at it. But PM me if you'd like, I'll see if I'm in the neighbourhood somewhere this week and I'll bring my Viper along. Practise goes both ways

Maybe we can create a win - win situation. I'm not rich, just a pretty well outfitted Adder and about 600.000 in cash. Would 5 tons of Palladium be fine?

 

[Krait_79]

I've been thinking for a while about FD's statements about intended changes to "make interdictions harder to avoid", and how to concisely say what I think is very fundamentally wrong about that from a design and player retention standpoint. I'm going to sidestep all the constant arguments about whether "pirate" mechanics should be in the game or whether the game is too easy to hack and grief with it's P2P networking design. Let's just focus on basic _design_ fundamentals that are firmly within FD's control.

Every single game I've ever seen, not just "massive multiplayer" ones, always revolve around a basic design fundamental that I seriously wonder if FD is planning to circumvent:

"A player should _always_ have the option to either run from a potential fight or to avoid a fight altogether"

Players need agency. They need choice. They need decisions. One such fundamental decision is whether to get into a fight or not. With other players. With NPCs. It doesn't matter. Fights can be "fun". They can also be "costly". The "fun" should be balanced against the "cost", and that balancing should be left 100% in the hands of the player, not the game.

Some simple examples from the history of MMOs:

* In games where aggressive CC mechanics like stuns, etc. were largely _unavoidable_ and _uncounterable_, the players very often speak with their feet and their wallets and either leave or stay away. And those that stay complain bitterly.

* In every MMO since the genre began, the game gives you plenty of visual cues or even visible mini-map "blips" to see potential trouble ahead _before you are detected by the game AI_ and you have the choice to try to find a different path to avoid the fight entirely. Or, some games might force you into "surprise attacks", but you always have the option and tools to simply try to run away successfully.

Interdictions as they stand today still give players agency and choice. You can simply submit, boost/evade for a very short time, and then FSD away. Or, you can stay and fight. Choice. It's good.

But what FD has been hinting at is an upcoming change whereby (as I interpret their comments), players will essentially be _forced_ into interdictions and their FSD will be forcibly disabled for much longer than it is now. This is VERY bad, IMO. I don't care whether we're talking about player pirates or NPC pirates: there are too many ship-ship matchups where the interdicting ship has a strong and unfair advantage against the interdicted ship. In many such matchups, the interdicted ship might be able to get away, but with a certain amount of hull damage which is far too costly. If you do not give the interdicted ship a chance to decide for themselves that the matchup is not in their favor, and you do not give them the tools to effectively run from such an imbalanced fight, then you are _doing design wrong_.

It's that simple.

Not really as allowing a player to always get away kills pirscy. Always allowing escape would be a stupid mechanic. Instead there should be a scalability in danger depending on where you go.

Then do you play safe for small reward or gamble risk for higher reward?

 

[Yokai]

Yes anyone can trade but the fact it's the most profitable career path isn't irrelevant.

Traders are unhappy about interdictions costing them money, but all in all they're still making money right? and in fact they're making far more than any other career path in the game. So it's no wonder you're being targeted tbh......

Interdictions should be hard to avoid, a trader is in a slow ship, a pirate is in a fast manoeuvrable ship, how could it be any other way?

It's a bitter pill to swallow if you've been making millions on your trade run but you've had it easy up till now.....you may die everynow and then and lose millions but all in all you've all been raking it in right?

It just might be that it won't be possible to do that run on your own anymore and you'll have to share out some of the profits to fighter escort. greedy traders...

No. It is not true that "traders are unhappy about interdictions costing them money". Well, some might be, but that's not the point of this thread, nor the OP, nor any of the points I've made so far in this thread.

The point of this thread is that in the context of the _proposeed future changes to interdiction mechanics_ proposed by Sandro Sanmarco (read up a few pages to find the links), in any one interdictor-interdicted interchange, the entire process is an unbalanced risk versus reward proposition. The interdictor has significant advantages in the mechanics and a far likier outcome for success. Even the devs say this is currently the case, and they have no plan yet to change that fundamental imbalance. Also, the proposed interdiction changes will actually reduce the ability of the trader to run successfully after being interdicted. This by itself would be no issue if the risk-reward balance between the typical interdictor ship and the trading ship in this "cage match" scenario were balanced. But right now it is not balanced. Most risk is on the trader and far less risk is on the interdictor.

 

[kapitankev]

The interdiction mini game isn't just skill based....

I'm pretty sure there's some sort of handicap system based on the class of interdiction device of the hunter and the class of fsd of the hunted.

A lot of type7 and 9s I just can't catch in interdiction, I suspect because they've got 1 spec FSDs.....

I certainly noticed my interdiction success rate against other players went up when I upgraded my interdiction device.

 

[Yokai]

Not really as allowing a player to always get away kills pirscy. Always allowing escape would be a stupid mechanic. Instead there should be a scalability in danger depending on where you go.

Then do you play safe for small reward or gamble risk for higher reward?

"Run from a fight" is not the same as "always escape from a fight"

"Avoid a fight" is currently impossible given game mechanics. There are no "safe" systems versus "dangerous" systems. NPC interdiction occurs everywhere. And NPC interdictions occur with no visible waring beforehand.


FSD cooldown is effectively the same concept as a "snare" in other MMO PvP mechanics. Right now, the snare is _short_, as it should be, which gives players a chance to try and run after the snare wears off. The proposed changes by Sandro Sanmarco are effectively increasing the length of the snare to a much longer duration. With current fight mechanics, this means taking a lot more hits while trying to get away. Which means substantial monetary cost in hull repair.

 

[Jordan Cobalt]

Every player can trade.
The fact that trading is the best money right now is irrelevant: no player is prevented from increasing their personal cash by trading.

It _is_ a strawman to argue that "because piracy is less cash flow than trading, there's your balanced risk-reward". Why? See the two statements made above. I can explain it to you, but I cannot understand it for you.

How is trading having the highest credit reward irrelevant to an argument of risk-reward balance?

If the fact that pirates can also trade makes the reward fair, then the fact that traders can fly combat ships makes the risk fair too.

 

[Wescott]

I've been thinking for a while about FD's statements about intended changes to "make interdictions harder to avoid", and how to concisely say what I think is very fundamentally wrong about that from a design and player retention standpoint. I'm going to sidestep all the constant arguments about whether "pirate" mechanics should be in the game or whether the game is too easy to hack and grief with it's P2P networking design. Let's just focus on basic _design_ fundamentals that are firmly within FD's control.

Every single game I've ever seen, not just "massive multiplayer" ones, always revolve around a basic design fundamental that I seriously wonder if FD is planning to circumvent:

"A player should _always_ have the option to either run from a potential fight or to avoid a fight altogether"

Players need agency. They need choice. They need decisions. One such fundamental decision is whether to get into a fight or not. With other players. With NPCs. It doesn't matter. Fights can be "fun". They can also be "costly". The "fun" should be balanced against the "cost", and that balancing should be left 100% in the hands of the player, not the game.

Some simple examples from the history of MMOs:

* In games where aggressive CC mechanics like stuns, etc. were largely _unavoidable_ and _uncounterable_, the players very often speak with their feet and their wallets and either leave or stay away. And those that stay complain bitterly.

* In every MMO since the genre began, the game gives you plenty of visual cues or even visible mini-map "blips" to see potential trouble ahead _before you are detected by the game AI_ and you have the choice to try to find a different path to avoid the fight entirely. Or, some games might force you into "surprise attacks", but you always have the option and tools to simply try to run away successfully.

Interdictions as they stand today still give players agency and choice. You can simply submit, boost/evade for a very short time, and then FSD away. Or, you can stay and fight. Choice. It's good.

But what FD has been hinting at is an upcoming change whereby (as I interpret their comments), players will essentially be _forced_ into interdictions and their FSD will be forcibly disabled for much longer than it is now. This is VERY bad, IMO. I don't care whether we're talking about player pirates or NPC pirates: there are too many ship-ship matchups where the interdicting ship has a strong and unfair advantage against the interdicted ship. In many such matchups, the interdicted ship might be able to get away, but with a certain amount of hull damage which is far too costly. If you do not give the interdicted ship a chance to decide for themselves that the matchup is not in their favor, and you do not give them the tools to effectively run from such an imbalanced fight, then you are _doing design wrong_.

It's that simple.

Pilots, consider the following, when any pilot submits to interdiction it should always give the prey a possibility to evade being destroyed, interdiction is never a guaranteed kill, It should not be a, "use it and I win" button as some would have it, with speed and reactions practice/skill and coupled with decent fittings another pilot can enhance his chances of escape, but while his are not guaranteed either, nor without damage, as long as both parties keep within the game rules, including designed game mechanics and the intended spirit of the game, then neither party can complain. The pirate /Bounty Hunter must have the chance of either getting some jetted loot or a kill sometimes, but the pther Pilot also has to have the chance of successfully escaping sometimes as well maybe not all in one piece, therein lies the struggle we contend with as predator and prey that's the bit that gives both parties the rush/fun call what you like; pitting your ship, skill, luck, fitting savvy, whatever against another. If you turn interdiction into a simple "I win button" then you should provide a "no you don't button" to balance it.

 

[knoppaz]

Imho the interdiction mechanic is fine as it is. The problem is the way how systems and offensive behaviour is handled. I know some people hate EVE with passion, but some of it's aspects could help ED in this regard..

- Systems secure status should not just be a label. If it's high security there should be a lot police around that is there to help traders in just a few seconds. The lower the security of the system gets the less police is there and the longer it takes them to get to crime scene. In the lowest security systems with police force they should take that long to arrive that you take the risk of them arriving to late. No police force in anarchy systems ofcourse.
This would give some protection and traders could then decide if they take the risk to go without shield if they're on a pure high-sec route or gear up and loose some profit if they're on a less secure route.

- Also as stated before there should be a real penalty for aggressing other ships. Pirates should not be allowed in high-sec systems meaning they get interdicted and attacked if they're not on their toes (though it should still be possible to interdict traders, it should just need a lot of skill and possibly team-work *soon^{[SIZE=1]TM[/SIZE]}*). This should ofcourse happen less in lower security systems since there is less police force on patrol. Pirates should also only be able to dock in anarchy systems and getting rid of bounty/outlaw status should be some work instead of just paying it off with one click.

 

[kapitankev]

Of course all the risk is on the trader, they're out in space on their own with lots and lots of valuable goods....

Why would there be any financial risk to the pirate? I can't think of any real life scenario where a bandit or pirate ever had anywhere near the financial risk involved in a raid as their target. That would just be silly.

I would say there should be a larger legal risk.....the police response could be quicker, possibly having police drop into the interdiction zone could be fun. or some kind of help beacon traders could set off....visible in SC to other NPCs and players....a flashing red USS or something similar.

Or there's the screamingly obvious fighter escort option.........the changes to interdiction sound spot on, they'll only encourage cooperative play over the deathmatch style one on one play we've seen up to now.

 

[BarFly]

Hello,

If the fact that pirates can also trade makes it fair, then the fact that traders can fly combat ships makes it fair too.

I disagree.
Sitting in fighter does not give me the same chance, because there is much more skill requiered. Even in a Anaconda, i probably would be death meat against an experienced Cobra or Viper. Vice versa it is much easier.

 

[Fian]

As I'd see it, the choice for the trader to run away should be held primarily in his ability to escape the interdiction itself. It is skill based and would suit me fine.

It's not skill based though - it is ship based. TBH if the interdiction game were levelled so that it was skill based (i.e. each ship given equal manouverability for the purpose of the mini game) then I would agree that it would be fair for a long cooldown on FSD whether the trader submitted or was defeated.

It would be great also if there were some mechanism to "discuss/negotiate" after a successful interdiction before the FSD cooldown runs out. It is a pity that there is no real opportunity to talk - pirates need to attack more or less immediately or the trader can escape, trader needs to run asap because he/she has to assume that the pirate will destroy their ship even if they are willing to surrender some cargo.

But ultimately it doesn't matter THAT much to traders how this is resolved - if it is a no-win scenario for traders they can make the same money in solo as in open. And most traders are trading to make money to fund other ships, we have the choice of flying in open only in ships which can hold their own and trading in mobius.

I traded in open with a t9 becuase I had a reasonable chance at escaping by submitting and running. If I lost that then when I go back to trading (I am currently exploring in an asp) I will trade in mobius group - there is no benefit to me from remaining in open if I will auto lose when interdicted. This is minor loss - it is more interesting in open when I can see other players in their own ships but at the end of the day while I am trading what concerns me most is my cr/hour not looking at a few hollow squares and triangles.

It seems to me some pirates aren't seeing the big picture - it is ultimately in your interest that traders have a reasonable prospect of escape from pirates - no one enjoys playing a role where there is no possibility of "winning". Again I am going to paste the quote from Sandro which Yokai previously posted:

All in all, the end result of this encounter is mostly likely that the trader suffers some amount of material loss (the extreme being that they are destroyed) and that the combat ship more than likely has a bounty. Depending on player skill and materials involved the result can swing one way or another, but this is most likely outcome.

At this point, the trader needs to recoup their losses (being traders, they'll likely trade to do this). I believe we currently have some issues linked to the severity of their potential loss, but I suspect we may be able to find ways of softening the extreme cases a little better (tweaks to the credit line, for example is something we're looking at, or some changes to overall ship costs). Importantly, to me it makes no sense for the trader to perceive that they somehow "lost" this encounter - because the deck was stacked against them from the start.

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.

 

[Skuli]

I've been thinking for a while about FD's statements about intended changes to "make interdictions harder to avoid", and how to concisely say what I think is very fundamentally wrong about that from a design and player retention standpoint. I'm going to sidestep all the constant arguments about whether "pirate" mechanics should be in the game or whether the game is too easy to hack and grief with it's P2P networking design. Let's just focus on basic _design_ fundamentals that are firmly within FD's control.

Every single game I've ever seen, not just "massive multiplayer" ones, always revolve around a basic design fundamental that I seriously wonder if FD is planning to circumvent:

"A player should _always_ have the option to either run from a potential fight or to avoid a fight altogether"

Players need agency. They need choice. They need decisions. One such fundamental decision is whether to get into a fight or not. With other players. With NPCs. It doesn't matter. Fights can be "fun". They can also be "costly". The "fun" should be balanced against the "cost", and that balancing should be left 100% in the hands of the player, not the game.

Some simple examples from the history of MMOs:

* In games where aggressive CC mechanics like stuns, etc. were largely _unavoidable_ and _uncounterable_, the players very often speak with their feet and their wallets and either leave or stay away. And those that stay complain bitterly.

* In every MMO since the genre began, the game gives you plenty of visual cues or even visible mini-map "blips" to see potential trouble ahead _before you are detected by the game AI_ and you have the choice to try to find a different path to avoid the fight entirely. Or, some games might force you into "surprise attacks", but you always have the option and tools to simply try to run away successfully.

Interdictions as they stand today still give players agency and choice. You can simply submit, boost/evade for a very short time, and then FSD away. Or, you can stay and fight. Choice. It's good.

But what FD has been hinting at is an upcoming change whereby (as I interpret their comments), players will essentially be _forced_ into interdictions and their FSD will be forcibly disabled for much longer than it is now. This is VERY bad, IMO. I don't care whether we're talking about player pirates or NPC pirates: there are too many ship-ship matchups where the interdicting ship has a strong and unfair advantage against the interdicted ship. In many such matchups, the interdicted ship might be able to get away, but with a certain amount of hull damage which is far too costly. If you do not give the interdicted ship a chance to decide for themselves that the matchup is not in their favor, and you do not give them the tools to effectively run from such an imbalanced fight, then you are _doing design wrong_.

It's that simple.

It's not that simple.

And most of your points are outright wrong.

Sorry. :/

 

[Yokai]

How is trading having the highest credit reward irrelevant to an argument of risk-reward balance?

If the fact that pirates can also trade makes the reward fair, then the fact that traders can fly combat ships makes the risk fair too.

You're conflating the scope of the "reward". In the larger sense of the entire game, every player has equal access to "reward". Anyone can trade. Anyone can BH. Anyone can pirate. Anyone can explore. Yes, there is an imbalance in terms of the three main paths (combat, trade, exploration) having inequal income flow, but that is a completely different _scope_ of imbalance than what the OP or this thread is about.

This thread is specifically about interdiction mechanics and the risk-reward balance between the interdictor and the interdicted. Nothing more, nothing less.

 

[TeeWee]

The interdiction mini game isn't just skill based....

I'm pretty sure there's some sort of handicap system based on the class of interdiction device of the hunter and the class of fsd of the hunted.

A lot of type7 and 9s I just can't catch in interdiction, I suspect because they've got 1 spec FSDs.....

I certainly noticed my interdiction success rate against other players went up when I upgraded my interdiction device.

I'm pretty sure that the interdiction game is based on: skill of target vs skill of hunter to stay on target / escape vector; interdictor class (better interdictors would logically mean better odds for hunter); perhaps also FSD-class, with better FSD-class leads to better odds for prey.

This would be fair and comparable to combat: it's primarily skill based, but weapons loadout does matter and can compensate for (lack of) skill. So if you're not so good at escaping interdiction, get better equipment to gain an edge!

 

[Jordan Cobalt]

Hello,


I disagree.
Sitting in fighter does not give me the same chance, because there is much more skill requiered. Even in a Anaconda, i probably would be death meat against an experienced Cobra or Viper. Vice versa it is much easier.

That is true but lack of fighting skills hurts every profession. If I get attacked by a superior fighter, I'm dead meat as well. Skill helps in every aspect in the game, but especially combat.