Yes, but with 'nitro packs' at least the pirates get to chase a fast moving target to test their skill against rather than a waddling baby seal which is no challenge at all and so... oh wait.
Design 101 - Players must ALWAYS have choice to avoid or run instead of fight
- Thread starter Yokai
- Start date
Yes, but with 'nitro packs' at least the pirates get to chase a fast moving target to test their skill against rather than a waddling baby seal which is no challenge at all and so... oh wait.
The point is that the mechanism as it stands is only in favor of the traders.
But you seem to be perfectly fine with it being completely in the favor of the traders.
And changing it will not be "only in pirate favor", it will balance it.
The pirate will have a fighting chance to stop the trader and the trader will have a fighting chance of getting away (instead of an automatic one)
I don't get why everyone is saying that this change will mean that traders have "no chance of escaping".
Is it always a binary choice?
Is there always either no chance at all of escaping or a 100% guaranteed chance of escaping.
having a decend chance for both parties to win the situation would be fair in my book, but it seems its purely black or white for some of the posters here.
Last edited:
They should go in internal compartments, not weapon hardpoints.
Speaking as someone who flew an unarmed courier in open, sacrificing a weapon slot for the ability to easily escape would've been a no-brainer, since I had no weapons in the first place. Having to sacrifice a cargo bay for that ability would be more a meaningful choice.
The whole ide is about the use of weapon hardpoints. Pirates use them for weapons... to facilitate their trade. Hardpoints are pretty useless to the dumb trader who learned business over tactics. So to balance this the suggestion is to make hardpoints useful for traders by having them hold the nitrus tanks or whatever, which are fired (used) like a weapon. So now both Mr Pirate and Mr Trader get to make use of the hardpoints. One for offense, the other to try and run.
Great idea! Just as long as Frame Shift Drive Interdictors get moved to the weapon hardpoints at the same time.
Again, an easy decision is not a meaningful one. An unarmed trader is already unarmed, and so they're not sacrificing anything for an extra boost of speed if they can use weapons hardpoints. A meaningful choice would be having to choose between more profit, and an extra boost in speed.
As it is, it's fairly easy to set up a speedy ship that is capable of spamming boost repeatedly. Traders are already quadratic earners in a linear universe. I don't think they need any extra advantages.
Speaking as an unarmed courier, I have never been in danger from an interdiction. It is far too easy for me to outpace and outmaneouver someone trying to shoot me from behind. My last PC interdiction, against a viper, left me with enough of a lead to feel safe enough to chat with the would-be pirate briefly before supercruising out of there. They never once managed to get through my shields. Pulling one of the viper's teeth would've made that encounter even less interesting.
But... but... don't you know that all traders will automatically die every time they are interdicted if they change the cooldown?
You're welcome (bet you didn't read the rest of my post after the opener did you? I'm not toally heartless
). The game could accommodate multiple play styles - but it would need a complete separation of solo from online, anything else is unfair to both parties..
I would also point out that there was a certain expectation of the continuation of the Elite series, the 'difficulty' slider for AI aggression was effectively provided by the system's government type, allowing players there own choice of difficulty.
.
FWIW I'm a trader and explorer not a pvp'er - haven't interdicted another play or killed anyone since the Betas. However, I expect that, in the simulation of the galaxy there are lawless, dangerous places we should fear to tread, and safer systems where any AI or player stepping out of line too often gest squished by authority.
.
Ultimately though, if the choice was a game with or without interdictions, I'd pick the former.
I do agree completely with OP.. and oddly enough, also with pirates, who feel being able to actually pirate, is a contest of disable, destroy or target runs.
This is what IS needed:
- Weapons designed to TEMPORARILY disable a ship. We could have a choice of various warheads for those cargo hatch disablers. A systems scrambler which temporarily disabled the ship, but could be stopped by ECM (quick reaction required) or shot down by auto defense turrets, would not give too much of an advantage. Trick here, is to make sure defensive systems aren't too effective, so sometimes it works anyway. To avoid Disablers being abused in normal combat, the effect could be completely negated if hit by anything else than other disabling devices.... hitting it with anything else, could cause the attacker to get a feedback and get disabled themselves. (Scientific explanation; any energy beam, missile or even bullets leave a quantum trail in vacuum and the disabling field will travel along any such path. Only disabling devices are specifically constructed to avoid this.) With wings coming up; a pair of pirates could overwhelm defensive systems with the amount of disablers running.. or fail miserably because the target had friends.
- Disablers could exist in multiple variations: Fields of some range, that makes it harder to jump away, but not impossible, limpet drones that disable ships, as mentioned above, and other useful devices.
- Such devices should compete for space with other useful devices, like jump trackers. That device is for bounty hunters and is one of the things that makes people feel griefed. You cannot actually escape.. just sc, interdict, sc, interdict, jump, being followed, interdicted again... in the end you submit because you are tired of being hounded. Pirates would not need this device, if they had the ability to rob you carefully and gently. Isn't piracy all about having to find a new target, if you lost one? Not to hound it to death.
- Robbing a ship this way, should grant piracy points (planned), as long as the target survives. Piracy points would be a way for the Pilots Federation to award pilots for preserving life; not as much encouraging piracy, as discouraging murder.
- Making fines for piracy only, relatively small, while murder fines should always be great. Edit: Oh, and permanently disabling a drive should be a murder class offense.
Then there would be no need for the other changes. Players can still run. Traders choose their defenses. Pirates choose their measures. Make it a contest of skill, technology and choices. But do remember this; Hackers and pirates have one thing in common: They design the attacks that normal people have to defend against. Pirates should have a higher chance of success than target, but not so high that it becomes anything like a certainty. Pirates should brag about managing to take the cargo of that heavily defended castle of a ship. Traders should brag about narrowly escaping that exciting encounter. And both should brag about ransom.
"It was only a cobra anyway. We agreed I'd drop 30 tons. What was the rest of my cargo to him?"
Being able to "Hold down" the target ship, knowing it will take them more than a couple of minutes to spool up their drives, because you have deployed an SC jammer, is what enables that conversation. You stay within 5 km, they can't jump. NOT because drives ALWAYS take that long to spool up. Oh.. and any system should have a counter... even that one. But it could take up a valuable internal slot.. a big one. Yes, you can spool quickly.. but at the cost of an appropriate class slot.
This is what IS needed:
- Weapons designed to TEMPORARILY disable a ship. We could have a choice of various warheads for those cargo hatch disablers. A systems scrambler which temporarily disabled the ship, but could be stopped by ECM (quick reaction required) or shot down by auto defense turrets, would not give too much of an advantage. Trick here, is to make sure defensive systems aren't too effective, so sometimes it works anyway. To avoid Disablers being abused in normal combat, the effect could be completely negated if hit by anything else than other disabling devices.... hitting it with anything else, could cause the attacker to get a feedback and get disabled themselves. (Scientific explanation; any energy beam, missile or even bullets leave a quantum trail in vacuum and the disabling field will travel along any such path. Only disabling devices are specifically constructed to avoid this.) With wings coming up; a pair of pirates could overwhelm defensive systems with the amount of disablers running.. or fail miserably because the target had friends.
- Disablers could exist in multiple variations: Fields of some range, that makes it harder to jump away, but not impossible, limpet drones that disable ships, as mentioned above, and other useful devices.
- Such devices should compete for space with other useful devices, like jump trackers. That device is for bounty hunters and is one of the things that makes people feel griefed. You cannot actually escape.. just sc, interdict, sc, interdict, jump, being followed, interdicted again... in the end you submit because you are tired of being hounded. Pirates would not need this device, if they had the ability to rob you carefully and gently. Isn't piracy all about having to find a new target, if you lost one? Not to hound it to death.
- Robbing a ship this way, should grant piracy points (planned), as long as the target survives. Piracy points would be a way for the Pilots Federation to award pilots for preserving life; not as much encouraging piracy, as discouraging murder.
- Making fines for piracy only, relatively small, while murder fines should always be great. Edit: Oh, and permanently disabling a drive should be a murder class offense.
Then there would be no need for the other changes. Players can still run. Traders choose their defenses. Pirates choose their measures. Make it a contest of skill, technology and choices. But do remember this; Hackers and pirates have one thing in common: They design the attacks that normal people have to defend against. Pirates should have a higher chance of success than target, but not so high that it becomes anything like a certainty. Pirates should brag about managing to take the cargo of that heavily defended castle of a ship. Traders should brag about narrowly escaping that exciting encounter. And both should brag about ransom.
"It was only a cobra anyway. We agreed I'd drop 30 tons. What was the rest of my cargo to him?"
Being able to "Hold down" the target ship, knowing it will take them more than a couple of minutes to spool up their drives, because you have deployed an SC jammer, is what enables that conversation. You stay within 5 km, they can't jump. NOT because drives ALWAYS take that long to spool up. Oh.. and any system should have a counter... even that one. But it could take up a valuable internal slot.. a big one. Yes, you can spool quickly.. but at the cost of an appropriate class slot.
Last edited:
I play in Solo. Agree with OP. 30% of the time I get interdicted in my A5 equiped T9 are unsurvivable. I get mass locked by Asp's and within 2 seconds my shields are down, no chance of using shield cells. Can't run, can't fight. Last three times I just got out of the game with 50% of my hull gone. 1.1mil cr dammage! I've parked my T9 untill we get better trader defensive weapons, stronger shields and lower repair cost. Only upside is that I'm now finding out how much fun a well equiped MKIII is for pretty much anything in Open play.
Last edited:
I promised myself to stay away from this discussion... but statements like this really get my ire up... Quote: 'Traders aren't fighters, they are cowards by design."'end of quote.
According by this statement everyone who is constructive, building up and and provides the necessary goods for daily living in all its forms is a coward; and all those who are tearing down and are destructive, and are sometimes murderous criminals, are the heroes.
Statements like this turn reality and truth upside down. Statements like this take what is essentially good and proclaim it evil and take was is essentially evil and pronounce it good.
In my opinion the statement made in this post is very, very immature indeed.
A part of the the game is supposed to reflect what the future of humankind might be an a few hundred years from now. If turning what is right into cowardliness and turning what is wrong into heroism, then the future of humankind looks bleak indeed. Wars without end are the result and eventually total anarchy and maybe self-destruction.
The true heroes... the true fighters... are those who keep their finger OFF the trigger until there really, really is no other option left but to fight. Traders are NOT cowards... they are one of the groups who belong to the builders of society as we know it. Defending what is constructive is right and proper. Wanton destruction and the joy that comes with it is the first sign of caos... the beginning of the end of society as we know it.
Please be careful what you wish for... it might come true.
I forgot one thing... Give traders the tools to survive in this game without loosing millions of credits with each (oh so heroic) Interdiction encounters.