Design 101 - Players must ALWAYS have choice to avoid or run instead of fight
- Thread starter Yokai
- Start date
The things that FD needs to do are :
1. Safe systems and dangerous systems: in safe systems profits should be lower but security higher... go to unsafe systems and profits rise but it comes with a rise of risk.
2. Change the wanted mechanic and pirate bases. A pirate that attacks or players who murder should not be allowed into regular stations.... they are wanted.
Instead Pirates should have their own lawless outposts/systems were they can escape etc...
3. If a pirate wants to become part of the regular society their should be missions/mechanics implemented that could get rid of the wanted status. Paying a small wanted fine in regular system is not enough because at the moment anybody can switch roles to easily. Within 10 minutes i can become a safe trader after i murdered a clean cmdr which just doesn't feel right...
After these things are implemented we can tweak the interdiction mechanic....
and traders can choose the 'dangerous' route or the safe route.
A lot of the game mechanics feel wrong because the game is not fleshed out properly. We don't need endless tweaking of game-mechanics. We need the universe to be fleshed out in a way the game mechanics make sense.
1. Safe systems and dangerous systems: in safe systems profits should be lower but security higher... go to unsafe systems and profits rise but it comes with a rise of risk.
2. Change the wanted mechanic and pirate bases. A pirate that attacks or players who murder should not be allowed into regular stations.... they are wanted.
Instead Pirates should have their own lawless outposts/systems were they can escape etc...
3. If a pirate wants to become part of the regular society their should be missions/mechanics implemented that could get rid of the wanted status. Paying a small wanted fine in regular system is not enough because at the moment anybody can switch roles to easily. Within 10 minutes i can become a safe trader after i murdered a clean cmdr which just doesn't feel right...
After these things are implemented we can tweak the interdiction mechanic....
and traders can choose the 'dangerous' route or the safe route.
A lot of the game mechanics feel wrong because the game is not fleshed out properly. We don't need endless tweaking of game-mechanics. We need the universe to be fleshed out in a way the game mechanics make sense.
Last edited:
Well AFAIK it is the intended design to have relatively safe systems, it just isnt currently working out like that. Having said that there is some degree of risk/reward tradeoff in that pirates tend to concentrate on the best trade routes such as the rares milk run. So really if people do that run without the ability/means to escape or fight back then its their lookout.
Sorry, OP, but you are simply wrong. No doubt about it. In essence you are saying that you want to be able to fly about in a ship geared up for trade, and nothing else, and never have to worry about pirates. Play Eurotrucker instead.
Players have plenty of choice. They can go around in a fully laden T9, and know that they are likely to lose every interdiction attempt, but know that the amount of profit they make on the runs where they are not interdicted will more than compensate for the occasional wipe out. After all, everyone keeps saying that trading is the only way to make money. Or they can assume that most pirates are not homicidal maniacs who want just blood, and drop enough good stuff to be let by. Most of the time. Or they can fly a multi-purpose ship with much less cargo space, but the means to fight back. And various other shades of grey.
Plenty of choice.
Players have plenty of choice. They can go around in a fully laden T9, and know that they are likely to lose every interdiction attempt, but know that the amount of profit they make on the runs where they are not interdicted will more than compensate for the occasional wipe out. After all, everyone keeps saying that trading is the only way to make money. Or they can assume that most pirates are not homicidal maniacs who want just blood, and drop enough good stuff to be let by. Most of the time. Or they can fly a multi-purpose ship with much less cargo space, but the means to fight back. And various other shades of grey.
Plenty of choice.
You appear to have side-stepped how this (with the quoted) applies in the case of Player to Player. The above is only reasonibly possible (the matchmaking) with NPCs.
Aside, even with the PVP element though the 'victim' as it would be should still have the option to run if they chose to. The interdiction process itself also provides the element of avoidance if you're successful during that - then you're free. If you're not successful you have a potential option to run away when you get pulled out of FSD in to Normal space - but you shouldn't be given a lift up by the game if the other player's ship is somewhat out fitted better than yours. Nonetheless the interdiction process shouldn't ever at all give you no option or make it deliberately impossible for you to NOT escape and also vice versa on the one who is doing the interdicting.
I agree, it's a balancing act - a delicate one.
I agree that damage and repair costs for larger ships need reducing drastically. As for NPCs in solo being dialled up - good! For too long solo has been perceived as a safe option. Now the problem would go away instantly if the decision to have separate commanders for solo and multiplayer had been made, 'cus then things like a difficulty slider for rate and quality of interdictions could be considered with impunity, but that's another argument.
.
Anyway, amusingly, whilst I've been reading and responding in this thread I've been interdicted 4 times. Gah! The game is fundamentally broken now! I have to pay attention to what's going on! Which I didn't necessarily have to before. I can't just read Facebook or the Forums in peace whilst in supercruise!
Hi, Trader here.
I kind of agree with OP here. Removing a trader's choice to run is going to turn more traders to Solo. It's all about time for me. If I die in my trade ship, that's a lot of time lost for me spent recovering. My time is valuable, so I trade in Solo only. If this was a single-player or offline game, I would just reload the save and not lose any time playing at all.
The interdiction mini-game does not require much skill, it's whoever has the more maneuverable ship in SC wins. Trade ships just can't keep up with the escape vector.
Fighting interdiction costs too much hull when I lose in an Anaconda. Even if I kill the Sidewinder who interdicted me, his bounty is not going to cover the hundreds of thousands of credits to repair it.
The only choice for me is to submit to prevent hull damage, then escape as fast as I can.
FD has been pretty good at balancing things so far, so I'll hold my judgement on any proposed changes. I'll wait and see what's to come.
I kind of agree with OP here. Removing a trader's choice to run is going to turn more traders to Solo. It's all about time for me. If I die in my trade ship, that's a lot of time lost for me spent recovering. My time is valuable, so I trade in Solo only. If this was a single-player or offline game, I would just reload the save and not lose any time playing at all.
The interdiction mini-game does not require much skill, it's whoever has the more maneuverable ship in SC wins. Trade ships just can't keep up with the escape vector.
Fighting interdiction costs too much hull when I lose in an Anaconda. Even if I kill the Sidewinder who interdicted me, his bounty is not going to cover the hundreds of thousands of credits to repair it.
The only choice for me is to submit to prevent hull damage, then escape as fast as I can.
FD has been pretty good at balancing things so far, so I'll hold my judgement on any proposed changes. I'll wait and see what's to come.
For those of you talking about needing a difference between safe and unsafe systems, is it a case of the safe zones needing to be safer, or the unsafe zones needing to be more unsafe but have a lot higher rewards? Where would you tip the balance?
+1 this right here. I don't fear interdictions in the least. If you interdict me then you didn't really want your ship anymore is how I see it.
I'm a trader who is PvP savvy. Being savvy is another way of saying "experienced", you don't get experience without doing it. Escape potential needs to be there, but it must be SKILL related.
+1 for this as well. I do believe you may be able to do that in the wings update. Of course I may be wrong.
For me, both. Safe systems should be very safe, and come down hard police response wise, on any offender AI or player, and I'd ramp up rewards for trading certain goods in anarchies/feudal/dictatorships.
Both I guess, its a case of giving the player the opportunity the tailor their experience. Quietly and uneventfully cruising the space lanes to make a "living wage" or running the gauntlet for big money.
Look, the thing is the whole point OP is trying to make, more so the way he/she is trying to make it is a complete falacy and very misleading i should say.
FD wont remove the choice. It has nothing to do with choice. What OP is saying is he/she doesnt want to be hard evading pirates. Thats it.
Last edited:
Because FD want it to be a dangerous open world game. As they say on their website (and I quote) "Remember it's a cut throat galaxy out there and combat is a basic skill that you need to survive. It can also provide rich pickings, be it bounty hunting or piracy."
Elite is not solely a space combat sim, it does have other elements - correct. But combat is a core element, will always be a part of the game, and you should be prepared for its eventuality.
.
And there is still a better chance of a challenging fight pvp than against AI, hence combat-oriented players will gravitate to open.
Last edited:
I agree that there should always be dangers in a game, otherwise, it's pretty much just set the autopilot and go to bed, but there should also be options for those people who do want to do trading. I've noticed that since 1.1, escaping interdictions has gotten much much harder. I play solo for the exact reasons that every says if you don't like pvp, go play solo. It's been my experience that ANY game that had pvp attracts a high number of ats that grief people just because they can. So I avoid that.
I agree though, there needs to be modules that a trader can spend some of his money on to help avoid (but not eliminate) the risks. A jammer that makes the interdiction game easier, or a stealth device coupled with changes to sensor rules would be really interesting, and make for some decisions for a trader. Load up on cargo bays and just accept the risk, or swap a few out for countermeasures.
I agree though, there needs to be modules that a trader can spend some of his money on to help avoid (but not eliminate) the risks. A jammer that makes the interdiction game easier, or a stealth device coupled with changes to sensor rules would be really interesting, and make for some decisions for a trader. Load up on cargo bays and just accept the risk, or swap a few out for countermeasures.
![[VR] Frank_G](https://forums-cdn.zaonce.net/data/avatars/m/59/59394.jpg?1553527111){kind=avatar}
Well, as soon as we are able to jump in flightgroups, providing escorts for traders, the lone pirate will surely think twice about interdicting a six ship convoy. On the other hand pirates will fly in groups as well, so if an interdiction happens its always the choice for the trader to run while the combat ships holding off the attacker.
In general i see nothing wrong with being interdicted and landing in a dangerous situation, being a trader or whatever. As long as i can get out using skill and whits and no regulated game mechanic, its totally fine.
However i agree, that damage done to interdicted ships is critical... being interdicted 3 times on the way to a station can easily shrink your millions, when piloting a big vessel. Probably the larger ships should simply suffer less damage. And avoiding interdiction in the first place? No. But an option to minimize the chance of being interdicted would be a cool thing... Hiding your signature in SC or using other pieces of interdiction chance reducing hardware that only fit the largest ships would be a nice addition to the game. [edit]... if there is a way to counter such measures of course [/edit]
In general i see nothing wrong with being interdicted and landing in a dangerous situation, being a trader or whatever. As long as i can get out using skill and whits and no regulated game mechanic, its totally fine.
However i agree, that damage done to interdicted ships is critical... being interdicted 3 times on the way to a station can easily shrink your millions, when piloting a big vessel. Probably the larger ships should simply suffer less damage. And avoiding interdiction in the first place? No. But an option to minimize the chance of being interdicted would be a cool thing... Hiding your signature in SC or using other pieces of interdiction chance reducing hardware that only fit the largest ships would be a nice addition to the game. [edit]... if there is a way to counter such measures of course [/edit]
Last edited:
Respectfully disagree. Making interdiction's more forced and FSD cool downs longer will make people forced to socialize a little more and will give pirates room to role play their piece. Surely, once in a while you run into a blood-thirsty maniac. But that's the price you pay for:
1. Playing in the open
2. Running a ship who's balance is heavily tilted from combat to trade.
Fly a clipper/python. Keep that t9 in the garage until you can have either human or NPC escorts. Simple.
If you can't get away, talk you way out. You've been caught by a pirate for Christsakes. That means your life is at his mercy. Way it should be.
1. Playing in the open
2. Running a ship who's balance is heavily tilted from combat to trade.
Fly a clipper/python. Keep that t9 in the garage until you can have either human or NPC escorts. Simple.
If you can't get away, talk you way out. You've been caught by a pirate for Christsakes. That means your life is at his mercy. Way it should be.