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

[CMDR Hagglebeard]

I haven't read your entire post, but one I have an idea for this. So many people think that once you have been interdicted, it's all over. I think the interdiction mini-game needs to beefed up, or you should be able to buy a module to help you escape, and THAT is your chance to get away. If he fails to escape the interdiction, he's at a disadvantage to the other player/NPC, and will most likely lose, and in this, I see no problem. The victim has a chance to get away, and his attacker needs skill to capture him. One last problem - those insanely expensive FSD interdiction drives. I've seen the improvement of the 33k over the 12k, and to think there are 178k+ modules is simply mad. the 33k should be the top-of-the-line model.

I didn't think this all the way through, so point out what I missed if you will.

 

[AstroZak]

I just posted this in another thread discussing pirate interdictions but I think it belongs here to.

This is what it boils down to. Most traders are not PvP savvy, heck I bet most of them don't particularly want to be, but even so they have to have an option in a PvP encounter where they can come out on top (ie, get away with their cargo intact).

I think it was in fact Sandro who said that traders have the option of beefing their ships up with armour, weapons, countermeasures and making a show against the pirate. Fine in theory but he is thinking with the mind of a combat pilot. Even with all the best armour, all the countermeasures and the biggest guns it can carry a type 6 or a hauler is NOT going to have a chance, especially if the trader just isn't into PvP anyway.

The only practical solution for most traders is to escape. So, ok, fix this submit/boost/FSD exploit but if you don't replace it with something that gives the trader a chance to escape instead of fighting a battle they cannot win then all the little space trucks and vans will be tottering off to Solo and Private Groups and the pirates will be left playing with themselves.

It has been said many times before. If traders are wanted in Open Play then they have to have a chance of surviving there.

Well said, as a trader, I voted with my feet and left open play. I didn't have a chance of surviving, so didn't see any incentive to be in open play - there's nothing to make it worth my while. Just lots more risk.
if it was worth my while, I might play in open, but as it stands things will have to look very sweet compated with private group play.

 

[pluton]

Players need agency. They need choice. They need decisions. One such fundamental decision is whether to get into a fight or not.

A player who is stopped by a pirate is not forced into fighting, even if he can't escape (and currently a T-type trading ship can't escape from a competent pirate in an Asp). He has the option to give the pirate the cargo which he demands. This will usually be a fraction of their cargo because the pirate ship has less cargo capacity then the trader.

So the trader makes less profit on that trip. Is that worse than the destination station saying "Sorry, we've already received a large shipment of beryllium, we don't need more just now, so we're offering a lower price?. Which would be a less controversial situation even if the effect is the same.

It's amazing, watching pirating twitch streams, how many traders choose to try and fight or escape in T6 and T7 (which ends in destruction in almost all cases), rather than give cargo. I usually try to run (depending on the situation) but I use an Asp with 5A shields which can usually escape. If you've reduced shields to maximize cargo space, then it's not unreasonable to lose some cargo if you're unlucky to be interdicted on a dangerous trade route.

There are psychopath players and NPCs who want to kill you rather than steal cargo, but that's not pirating and is a different problem. NPC behaviour can be fixed. Murderous players could be punished by interesting game mechanics. The problem would be distinguishing between "approved" piracy where a kill is because the trader didn't comply, and wanton murder.


If NPCs behaved more like player pirates (ask for cargo, let a player go after complying or if they have no cargo), there would be less difference between Open and Solo modes, and piracy would be less controversial.

 

[Loskene]

OP without shields aside, it is rapidly turning into a game where combat is the preferred mode. When it gets down to a steelcage deathmatch like World Of Warplanes (and about the same number of players), you might want to re-think that. Frontier should.

Oh for-

Combat is the preferred mode for this game. The devs have stated on no uncertain terms that every ship, no matter what you plan on doing with it, should be outfitted for combat because it will come to you eventually. If you choose not to, that's your risk to take, but don't cry when it comes back to bite you, jeez. The game isn't going to collapse just because a few eejits think it's a completely different type of game and started wailing when their unrealistic expectations weren't met.

 

[OillyRag]

"A player should _always_ have the option to either run from a potential fight or to avoid a fight altogether"
It's that simple.

What absolute and complete codswallop.

I am genuinely pleased that frontier didn't read your imaginary rule book when they where designing ED.

 

[Deleted member 38366]

-- Deleted --

 

[CMDR Hagglebeard]

Funnily enough, I did read the Post and to me the OP was saying that no escape from an Interdiction is not good for the game. making it even harder is just absurd.
If your Dev. continues to program against the honest trader trying to play his game in the community spirit of live and let live.
Then a lot of players will be even more disillusioned than they are at present.
Or simply call the game Elite Viper or Elite Pirate, and just scrub the multi-player concept altogether.
NPC Pirates are manageable but tooled up PVP Pirates are a game breaker.
Finally, I think the cool-down Period is too long now, not too short. But I suppose we must not make it too difficult for the Honest Prate.

I think the cool-down is fine as well (and I was a pirate), but the submit and boost away method is almost an exploit. I really do hope the devs fix that, it's absolutely IMPOSSIBLE for Cobras to attach a limpet(A class controller) and get a good haul from it, as the cargo comes out one by one. I can't even get the limpet on most times.

Also, maybe traders need a pirate's view to appreciate their strength?
-I never go for traders with Point Defense, tiny chance the limpet will survive
-Traders can try to avoid the interdiction before they get sucked out of FSD space.
-Lakon Type 9s are usually too well armed. (I might try that actually)
-If we're using gimballed weapons (as many do), a chaff could save you.

 

[AstroZak]

With 1.2 that will be possible, at least in terms of hiring other players to protect you. As to the OP, I feel like if you are in a situation where you get successfully interdicted by another ship you have already lost but right now even if you lose the interdiction you have too many options to escape. By increasing the cooldown on FSD or disabling it entirely if you get interdicted, you give pirates a much fairer chance of doing their role. As things stand, the options for escape after getting interdicted are so easy and numerous that the pirates are forced to immediately open fire on their victim in order to disable their ship before they escape. By increasing the cooldown on the FSD this won't be necessary and will therefore open up more opportunities for negotiation, player interaction and roleplay, things that right now are lacking in the game.

Yes you want to give players the option of avoiding a fight but they already have that with the interdiction mini-game and right now, even if you lose that game it's far too easy to escape. That is what FD are looking at changing, and I think it's the correct decision.

I couldn't disagree with this more. Last time I was interdicted in open play it took 3 seconds for the whole interdiction mini-game, that wasn't enough time to even realise what was going on. Then once the interdiction was completed, the pirate opened up on my immediately, destroying my ship. So, 8 seconds from playing trucking down the highway, to loosing 5 million in ship and cargo. There was no sign of it comming, there was no chance that I could escape, there was no chance of altering the outcome. 8 seconds, that's why I no longer play in open play. And you want to make things harder for the trader? really?

 

[CMDR Hagglebeard]

Funnily enough, I did read the Post and to me the OP was saying that no escape from an Interdiction is not good for the game. making it even harder is just absurd.
If your Dev. continues to program against the honest trader trying to play his game in the community spirit of live and let live.
Then a lot of players will be even more disillusioned than they are at present.
Or simply call the game Elite Viper or Elite Pirate, and just scrub the multi-player concept altogether.
NPC Pirates are manageable but tooled up PVP Pirates are a game breaker.
Finally, I think the cool-down Period is too long now, not too short. But I suppose we must not make it too difficult for the Honest Prate.

I think the cool-down is fine as well (and I was a pirate), but the submit and boost away method is almost an exploit. I really do hope the devs fix that, it's absolutely IMPOSSIBLE for Cobras to attach a limpet(A class controller) and get a good haul from it, as the cargo comes out one by one. I can't even get the limpet on most times.

Also, maybe traders need a pirate's view to appreciate their strength?
-I never go for traders with Point Defense, tiny chance the limpet will survive
-Traders can try to avoid the interdiction before they get sucked out of FSD space.
-Lakon Type 9s are usually too well armed. (I might try that actually)
-If we're using gimballed weapons (as many do), a chaff could save you.

 

[Tar Stone]

Press Space to escape.

 

[Dogoncrook]

I couldn't disagree with this more. Last time I was interdicted in open play it took 3 seconds for the whole interdiction mini-game, that wasn't enough time to even realise what was going on. Then once the interdiction was completed, the pirate opened up on my immediately, destroying my ship. So, 8 seconds from playing trucking down the highway, to loosing 5 million in ship and cargo. There was no sign of it comming, there was no chance that I could escape, there was no chance of altering the outcome. 8 seconds, that's why I no longer play in open play. And you want to make things harder for the trader? really?

That hollow triangle stalking you was a good indication you need to hop to another system. There was a sign you just didn't pay attention.

 

[Lobstris]

My suggestion for something else: hire a good game designer! I am not a game designer.

Think you got things a bit backwards. Elite lore is one of being a trader that adds combat as a secondary role.

Respectfully, the original game was originally designed as nothing but combat, trade got added to give the player a reason to care about their ship, and to break up the monotony of combat.

See the recent escapist interview: http://www.escapistmagazine.com/art...aben-Discusses-Elite-Dangerous-and-Space-Sims
look at the end of para 5. ...and track down the BBC programme discussing the history of Elite... *Edit* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GpWoF5uVgbA
.
Either way, whether the chicken or the egg came first - both bits were pretty integral to the experience.

Your ideas are interesting but avoid the OPs topic of interdictions and problems with the existing game mechanic. Your ideas affect the events leading up to the interdiction.

Yes. Because I don't believe that there is a problem with the existing mechanic - indeed, I believe it needs to be an inherent part of the game. Hence, to avoid an interdiction I believe there should be more options, but that doesn't mean the mechanism of interdiction should be removed or suppressed. Here we have a fundamental difference of opinion as to what the game should entail.

 

[pluton]

That hollow triangle stalking you was a good indication you need to hop to another system. There was a sign you just didn't pay attention.

"Hollow triangle"? Why would a pirate want to advertise his presence by deploying hardpoints in supercruise?

And you can't identify the name or wanted status of a ship unless it's directly in front of you.

 

[CMDR Beltane]

Sorry, but i don't get is as well. You have choices. You have the choice to either play that minigame with the chance to simply evade the interdiction or to submit if you don't want to take chances on hull damage. After SC dropout you have the chance to either pick the fight or go and run for it. Only thing i agree, a submit drop shouldn't take equally long for the FSD to recover as a forced dropout. But more because its not logical. Either i am forced out of SC or i am not. Besides that and as a trader myself, no - there should be no option to avoid Interdiction 100%. As much as i feel and understand those traders who like to play in open, a module that would prevent interdiction from beeing happen, would totally destroy Piracy and Bounty Hunting. As for Solo and PG, shouldn't be worth mentioning. At best there awaits a nice paycheck after the pirate is dusted. At worst you simply kick in your booster and raise your finger before you drop back into SC again.

There are currently really only two changes i would like to see.

1) Interdiction is aggressive behaviour that raises your bounty / grants a fine

2) KWS is usable in SC

That way our dear Bounty Hunters don't have top drop you out of SC to do their job and if you are interdicted you at least know "Either its a pirate, or the police - cause i am wanted myself". As for the rest, as someone already said: If you choose to go without shields, a lower class shield, without weapons and whatnot, just to squezze out that extra tons to make more profit -> Your personal risk, and no one elses problem.

Just my two cent

 

[AstroZak]

The problem is that if you make fighting entirely optional then trading becomes a zero risk activity. I think there should always be an opportunity to avoid or escape given skill and tactical awareness (the tactical awareness may mean in some cases "dont go to the system in the first place because its too dangerous").

- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -



If you want the risk of this happening then fly somewhere safer, or play solo ...

Solo play, yep. Already doing that. I thought this thread was more about making it possible for everyone to open play together. My mistake. As for "tactical awareness" You are saying that a space trucker should be a combat pilot? No, but I'd like to have enough time to be able to turn my space truck into a battering ram, and head full pelt as your hull - At least that way, I can take you down with me. But as I've said previously, my last encounter lasted 8 seconds. Not even enough time to turn around, let alone realise what is going on.

 

[Midnight-shadow]

"Hollow triangle"? Why would a pirate want to advertise his presence by deploying hardpoints in supercruise?

And you can't identify the name or wanted status of a ship unless it's directly in front of you.

Because you need to deploy your hardpoints in order to interdict someone in the first place......

 

[Dogoncrook]

"Hollow triangle"? Why would a pirate want to advertise his presence by deploying hardpoints in supercruise?

And can't identify the name or wanted status of a ship unless it's directly in front of you.

I haven't seen many players being subtle but even if they were, if you aren't paying attention to the hollow blips your gonna die and it's your fault. What more do you need? You can avoid players interdictions 100% of the time. What you cannot do is ignore them with impunity like you are asking for.

 

[CharlesD]

Not necessarily. There should always be the potential for a player to be completely outmatched and be in a no-win situation. Now normally this should be due to their own stupidity or lack of preparedness (e.g. flying a T9 without shields, full of palladium into a pirate base, an anarchy system), rather than a bug in the mechanics or too much random chance and poor luck, but the possibility must exist to make the game dangerous.
.
Sometimes life just hands you lemons, a decent simulation shouldn't shy away from that.



Agreed - the sooner FDev can get escorts and crew in game, the sooner we can get all of this mess 'balanced' out with more options.

It was done well in the mobile game Galaxy on Fire 2. You could hire these wingmen in stations and they would be with you for a certain amount of time. They came in handy sometimes.

 

[MayhemMike]

Risk vs Reward, that's how it should be.
If someone fits his/her ship for maximum profit and chooses to take the most profitable route, maybe even in one of the more populated areas then this should come with a risk.

I don't see a reason why one profession should get a free license to print money while everyone else has to deal with way more risk for far less.

 

[Zhang]

That hollow triangle stalking you was a good indication you need to hop to another system. There was a sign you just didn't pay attention.

They never learn. You can't go by hardpoints deployed though, most competent pirates don't deploy until they're on your 6 and within range. So if you see ANY hollows at all in SC, don't blithely drive in a straight line. If you do, you deserve to be interdicted.