Design 101 - Players must ALWAYS have choice to avoid or run instead of fight
- Thread starter Yokai
- Start date
If a pirate hits a trader with rails and cannon you get hull and system damage very quickly. Rails can also 'stun'. Even in an Asp I've had that happen so quick my head started spinning. Which is why i went straight way and bought some. the cooldown needs changing but bad pirates will remain bad pirates. they'll just start blaming chaff and the fact shield cells still are a thing.
true, if you fly like that you deserve to robbed
And yet - In high security systems you should be able do even that, in lawless systems - convoys with escorting combat ships but better profits.
I repeat - BALANCE - not PvP arena. Traders must have place, pirates as well -
and by definition
traders to exist must have - steady profits, relatively easy, peaceful life
Pirates - lots of excitement, very dangerous, profitable but again - VERY dangerous, only best should prosper. If any noob can take a Viper or Cobra and prey on Lakons with impunity - its broken and bad to the game.
- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -
FSD - i think A grade system should be more efficient and cool down fast, worse grade systems - longer cool down time.
Last edited:
agreed
yes for fighter escort - if you can hire elite NPC.
Otherwise wings are only for pirates to gang up.
I've been reading through countless threads on this subject and it seems about half of the players out there are sick to death of interdictions and want them reduced and the other half want FD to implement ways to force players to fight by making it impossible to avoid interdictions. Let me just play out a scenario that all you trigger happy players want. Let's assume FD made interdictions even easier and changed the cooldown time or whatever so players couldn't run. What do you suppose will be the result? A fun game of interactive combat between equally competent players? NO! What you'll end up with is driving away the 50% of players who are already ripping their hair out when they've been interdicted for the 43rd time in the last hour by either an overly aggressive NPC, a cheating human player who gets kicks from showing they can manipulate computer code or someone who's been playing since the dawn of this game, owns a monster of a ship and gets a kick out of blasting some innocent trader to bits who has neither the ship or the desire to fight. Is that what you combat junkies who love interdiction really want? The OP was all about seeking balance and that's what ED lacks completely at the moment. What we will end up with is just another MMO with all the "level 80" elites ruling the game while those of us who can't or don't want to fight will be pushed out of the game by pure frustration. This, in my book is a fundamental design flaw. Forget all the pretty clouds and the planet landings, let's get the core game mechanic balanced and fun for everyone. The combat junkies can do pvp with equally matched players, noobs and players who want to mine, explore and trade in peace should have that option and the few players out there who are clearly using code hacks to win should be banned from the servers. Simply saying, "if you don't want to fight, play in solo mode" is stupid. ED is more than just mindless "pew pew".... at least it should be!
Last edited:
If FD implemented the 5 suggestions, the game would die anyway because all you'd do is hand the entire game over to piracy. If players had no way to avoid interdiction or by removing the "log-off" last resort option, and piracy is more profitable, who's going to bother trading? Lose a T7 or T9 full of cargo to piracy made easy every time you try to do a trade run? Who's going to afford to do that? Once the traders give up, who would you pirate? Then who would the bounty hunters kill? By removing the option for some players to avoid a fight you're forcing the game down a combat-only path and once again, there's no balance.
It is divisive, given the thread.
Over the past few days, my attitude has hardened to 'if you don't like interdiction, you're in the wrong game' pretty much. <shrug> Perhaps not conducive to debate.I'll qualify my 'cannot be fundamentally flawed comment' - 't'was driven by frustration at the seeming need to cater for all tastes and make elements of the game 'safe', which shouldn't happen whilst mode switching remains.
.
The implementation of interdiction is not perfect, but the fundamental mechanism of allowing the possibility of combat between ships must remain. And, if we assume that for multiplayer gameplay purposes, combat must take place in normal space then there must be some form of mechanism to pull ships out of super-cruise to initiate combat. My point earlier in this thread was that a lot could be done to make detection of ships in super-cruise, and evasion of an interdiction more interesting. As you say, more time to detect 'hostility' or 'innocence'.
.
However, your point about ships dropping you out of StarDreamer in the previous games worked because pretty much every other ship on an intercept course was hostile to you. With E: D a lot of AI and players may share the same vector as you, how would you determine intent to avoid the mass lock to working for ships that actually just wanted to 'pass in the night'? The orrery view in Frontier/FFE was also useful in that you could see other ships and hyperspace clouds in relation to your position - something currently lacking in E: D.
.
Some of the rest of what you say about range I find most agreeable. Frontier have made the assumption that all fights need to be beautiful, visual slugfests that take place at Mark I eyeball range. As a modern combat flight sim player, I find this somewhat ludicrous (and even less plausible in the year 3300
). I'd rather we had a game where we were dropped out of super-cruise wherever we exited (even 100kms from the stations) and scanners had a lot longer range. This would allow pirates to lurk on the fringes of stations for prey (as well as near systems/suns in super-cruise), traders to run the gauntlet getting to the station, and police to actually launch from the station (as per the older games) rather than just spawning in after an appropriate delay. Engagements could open at longer ranges with exchanges of missile/countermeasure fire (or heat management/silent running/evasion) followed by closing to knife fight range. Now whether that would work with p2p instancing or the coordinate system in use (I think I read that local coordinates relative to an object were float32s, vs 64bit precision for the general system coords?).
Your last point still eludes me. In Frontier/FFE any AI who set a course for you wished you ill pretty much, and in a single player game, they were all aimed at you. At least in E: D an AI with hostile intent may go for another player. In fact it makes more logical sense when a player does it (or should do) e.g. a pirate player going for a Lakon T6 over a Viper in the prospect of better loot.
.
The interdiction mini-game itself is a bit 'meh', but then how do you factor in a game of skill + mass of both ships + FSD vs. Interdictor module + poor p2p multiplayer? I wouldn't mind if the mini-game was removed completely and interdictions were always successful once initiated, assuming that the gameplay and potential for evasion were elaborated on prior to the interdiction starting. I.e. with a decent range and powered scanner a trader could detect an incoming hostile, and choose to go cold and change vector to evade (or deploy jamming of some kind). Trouble is I think super-cruise is too quick and geared to twitch gaming for this to work at present, and half of the readers of this post will think I'm mad wanting super-cruise slowed down and made more tactical.
.
*EDIT* FWIW I completely agree with Snakebite's 5 points too, as long as hiring AI wingmen is added asap + grouping/wings working as advertised.
*EDIT2* And additional to the above - CARGO INSURANCE! That's another 'why isn't this implemented yet?' facepalm.
Last edited:
It is divisive, given the thread.
How accommodating of you. Why must everyone have to accept the way that you want to play the game? Why can't the game accommodate multiple styles of gameplay? I'm not a big gamer but I was attracted to ED because it presents a gorgeous simulation of our galaxy. I've had a fascination with astronomy since my youth and ED provides an entertaining way of exploring our galaxy that I've spent many hours looking at through my telescope. ED also provides a real release for my stressful real-world job. To me, it's enjoyable to fly through space and trading provides a means of immersion in this simulated world. A real stress reliever. Since 1.1, it's become less so.
Even in solo play, the npc interdictions have become very irritating. I've been interdicted more than once just trying to get to one station even though I'm not in an Anarchy system and there are what seems like plenty of security forces flying around. The NPC interdictions seem quite mindless from the standpoint that they simply message a mindless insult with the word "die" somewhere in it and then they start shooting. Last night I was interdicted by an Asp and a Viper that both immediately started firing missiles at me. In both cases I submitted to the interdiction and boosted away in my well-appointed Cobra but I'm really tiring of the frequency of the interdictions. I started playing ED primarily to enjoy seeing a wonderful simulation of our galaxy but now I have to constantly monitor my scanner and check out the ships around me to try to avoid be interdicted.
Why did FD put all the effort into making a fantastic simulation of our galaxy to simply make it an arena of constant conflict and battle?
So I've been reading this thread and here are folks like yourself that tell me that if I don't like it, just go away. Well, maybe I just will if all FD can do is racket up the irritation factor for players like myself who don't enjoy the game in the manner that you obviously do.
I wonder how many of you in this thread that simply reply with a glib "space is dangerous" took advantage of what you now call a flaw to build up a large credit account and now want it closed to new players? How many of you now playing pirates will only interdict another player when you feel you have a good chance of having a significant advantage over your intended victim. Where's the danger and the risk for you in an interdiction?
[Edit] I forgot to add that I do agree with you that FD needs to implement cargo insurance. Both pirate and trader have the same insurance coverage on their ships but the trader can potentially lose millions in their cargo. Maybe then the traders that you so much want to engage with will be more willing to stand and fight.
Last edited:
I have not yet seen anyone suggest that people shouldn't be able to avoid interdictions.
As it stands, it's possible to avoid before they even start.
Keep your eye on the radar, look for people trailing you, if someone is closing in on you directly from behind, they are most likely going to interdict you.
Change your course and speed and you've avoided that interdiction.
And even if you get interdicted, you can still jump away from that interdiction if you just put some effort into it by taking evasive maneuvers, boosting power to your shields, using shield cells and countermeasures.
What people are complaining about is the fact that submitting to an interdiction, as it stands right now, is an automatic escape due to the insanely short cooldown period on the FSD.
That means that anyone that does an interdiction will likely walk away from their efforts (and yes, it is an effort) with no reward whatsoever in 99% of the cases where someone submits.
That's not fair to them. They should at least have a fighting chance to get something out of it.
But then there are traders who think that they should have an automatic pass from all interdictions for the simple reason of "I don't like them". But if you choose to play in an open world enviroment then you are choosing to submit yourself to the possibility of being interdicted.
So yes, the "go play solo" comment is very valid since the very point of open play is player interaction. And that includes all forms of interaction from simply chatting in chat to piracy, escorts and all the way to murder and mayhem.
You don't get to pick and choose which of those interactions you want to participate in.
You're all-in or you're not in at all.
I'm surprised you are not out in the void exploring, the interdictions stop the further out you go. Also, I'm exclusively in Open and in my home system I don't tend to get interdictions. Ive never been interdicted by a player (Other than a test in Beta 1.1). Sounds like you're in a busy area and could consider moving.
You repeatedly mentioned the Python as example... really... no other trading ship can escape an interdiction as easily, as a Python. Even with nerfed shields and shield cells, it is almost impossible to take out the shields of a fleeing Python, before it can jump back to SC. A Python doesn't have to fear anything... except another Python of course
This is really good. Not going into "this system is lawless and infested with crazy assassin kill-without-scan-pirates" is also a choice.
You can select not to go there, at least "the second time" =)
I have a simple and elegant solution. Remember 'The Dukes of Hazard'? See where I'm going with this? Let's have the space version of nitrous boosters. Various sizes. Expensive Each one takes up a weapon slot. Each use adds extra oomph to your boost. Now the trader has a chance to get away by out boosting the pirate. Of course Mr. Pirate can use them too... but at the cost of one or more weapons. Traders aren't fighters, they are cowards by design. They grew up at their father's knee learning how to turn a profit, not how to fight fancy. The players who play traders often don't want to fight, it's not how we get our jollies. This idea means they can just put the pedal to the metal and hope they have more and better 'nitro packs' than the loathsome low life chasing them.
The second that was implemented we'd have another epic whining campaign like we had with shield cells.
It would be unfair that the better pilot couldn't win.
They would become compulsory and so be unbalancing.
All the usual excuses from the type of gamer who wants things adjusted to thei level of skill rather than the other way round.
But on the other side, traders do not have a right to fly defenceless in a slow straight line through any system they choose. Avoiding getting interdicted isn't that hard.
Mostly quoting you specifically for context, so no need to reply, but I did want to point out something I've noticed when people bring up separating Solo and Open, and that does seem to be the expectation that if the save files were separated, we'd just have two groups, one group that was multiplayer ALL the time, and the other that was NEVER multiplayer. Basically, 'If you play in Solo, you ONLY play in Solo, no multiplayer for you.' (Not sure if you meant that specifically, but your 'solo is solo' bit suggests you did.) That's not actually quite true, as even with separate files, the players who choose Open might actually find themselves a bit more limited in terms of choice, while the players outside Open will still get to have their Solo cake and eat multiplayer too.
For the record, going to refer to the theoretically separate save files as 'Accounts,' as in 'You have an Open Account, and a Solo Account.'
Now, let's say a player doesn't want to play with other people (more specifically, pirates,) on a particular day, for whatever reason, but still want to do their usual trading run and make some credit-related progress on their Open Account... however, obviously they cannot go to Solo. What do they do? Simple! They'll instead go to a private group with three trusted friends, or even just make their own, or join Mobius, etc, etc, etc. Basically, still participate in Open whenever they want, but have their own 'Not-Really-Solo-But-Might-As-Well-Be' mode to go off to with their Open Account. So for your idea to work, all Open Accounts have to be barred from jumping in and out of Private Groups. Which would kind of suck (I'm hoping a good roleplaying group springs up somewhere down the road myself, would hate to give up forays into Open in my Anaconda to play there,) but okay, we'll call it a sacrifice.
Now, TECHNICALLY there's no reason not to share your Solo Account with Private Groups. But let's say you're of the opinion that a Solo player should be kept ONLY to Solo, and not be able to interact in any form of multiplayer, because if they wanted to ever play with people they should have joined Open instead. So, in order to REALLY make a player decide between Multiplayer All the Time, or Solo All The Time with their ship, you'd have to bar Solo Accounts from using their saves in Private Groups either. Which sucks if I'm normally solitary but just want to pew pew with my one buddy, but okay, more sacrifice!
So! Since neither Open nor Solo can move their save files in and out of Private Groups, then obviously to be a regular participant in something like Mobius, a Private Group Account is needed, a completely separate save file for groups to allow the PvE crowd, roleplay crowd, etc, to have their own environment to flourish. (Heck, maybe we can have the option to 'copy' a Solo or Open Account, turning it into a Private Group Account, but with any money made or experience gained while playing in a Private Group staying there, with no way to bring it back to Solo or Open. So if you Export your Imperial Clipper Open Account to Private Groups and, while there, grind your way up to a Python... well, your Open Account still just has the Imperial Clipper.)
All right, so we now have a Solo Account, an Open Account, and a Private Group Account. Except, if you were determined to have Solo mode AND multiplayer functionality, you could just join a big multiplayer group (and with the separation of Solo and Open, you know that these would spring up, like an 'Open 2.0,' all the same PvP allowances and rules as regular Open,) and then have a separate small group for your 'Kind of Solo' play, giving you your very own in-group Solo and Open mode. And just like that, you'd be able to have your Solo cake, and eat multiplayer too. =P
Now, don't get me wrong, I'm sure that those of you advocating Open and Solo save separation won't ACTUALLY protest, or even care if, the guys in Solo still get multiplayer fun, or if people use Private Groups to make their own Solo/Open mode equivalents, as your point seems to be 'Not in my instance, please.' And given the preference for staying in Open, I'm sure you also are fine with not being able to jump in and out of any private groups. (At best, you might be able to export a 'copy' of the Open Account to Private that you can't bring back to Open.) I'm just pointing out that isolating Open won't make the choice come down to 'Do You Want To Play With Others All The Time, Or By Yourself All The Time?' It's actually going to come down to 'Do You Want To Play With Others All The Time, Or With Others When You Want And By Yourself When You Want?'
Not going to lie. I like playing with you guys (when I'm not two hundred light years away, anywho,) but I'm also a strong believer in keeping my options open. xD Even though I spend 90% of my time in Open anyway, I'd likely switch to private groups just to have that option for the peaceful 10% zen time.
Good point! That's where I'm heading but deep space exploring doesn't seem to be something you can do starting out. I'm working on a ship with good jump range and capability. But I also like the trading. I no longer play Wow but I enjoyed selling in the auction house and exploring and was very successful. Say what you want about WoW but I've always thought Blizzard has done a great job at allowing for a broad variety of gameplay. There raids and dungeons for those who like group combat, pvp zones and whole pvp servers for those who like personal combat, and activities and goals for those who enjoy less violent play. All this in a world where there is no such thing as open vs solo play.
I'm still loving ED and hope to continue to do so for quite a while although I'm concerned about the attitude that it should be a galaxy of constant conflict. Yes, space is dangerous but that doesn't mean that the people who inhabit and explore it have to be. I think FD has developed something very special in the galaxy they've simulated that could be very appealing to a broad range of players with different interests. I'm not saying there should be no interdictions. I think 1.1 went a bit overboard with the NPC interdictions. Even though I've mostly traded, I've always kitted my ships with shields and defensive gear. I think it's a fun aspect of the game that you have to make tradeoffs between cargo and defense/offense.
Yep you're right, exactly. Now is it Dangerous just for people or NPC, who live otherwise than as a pirate.
This is Elite Dangerous. So must be Dangerous for all.
Now pirates just laughing (this remind me our real world). Crime is not punished. I don't count 4k or 15k bounty for destroying ship in Federation or other big faction system. It's nothing compared to what damage he caused.
Punishment and maybe cargo insurance
can be changed.There are many ways to solve it without having to change the way of playing.
We don't need to change the game mechanism. Just adjust the punishment and security all people who play it.
My post from other thread... (punishment)
1. shooting without destroying the ship = you get bounty on your head (depend on the major faction)
2. you destroy ship = punishment, your bounty will be 1% from the ship value (inclusive cargo) because you destroyed property and from this "bounty" gets some % to the owner of the destroyed ship as compensation (or whole bounty) after the pirate is killed or he pays the bounty)
3. shooting inside station without destroying the ship = punishment, like in point 1. or some % up because you broke the law inside station..
4. destroying the ship inside the station, your punishment will be same like point 2. or with some % more up, because you broke the law inside station (and of course the victim get the compensation like in point 2.)
- The victim has no rights, right now and not all victims are rich (in the future updates we can put "bounty" on the players), so I thing we need some compensation.
BE FAIR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
It's just a rough outline for discussion.
I hope, someone understand the point of my view.
And sorry for bad english
Not sure why this isn't obvious to all, but if they make it easier to kill traders via making the FSD cooldown longer all that will result in is fewer people running dedicated trading vessels and fewer traders in general for pirates to attack. Basically with the absurd time investments involved in making money in this game there's just no upside for a trader with a hold full of highly valuable cargo to go into open unless they just want the experience for whatever reason. And actually this could make trading in a dedicated trader in solo pretty bad too. I'm sure that FD doesn't intentionally mean to make their game less and less appealing to people, but they don't act like it.