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

[Kubicide]

And your suggestion of 'something else' is?
.
Let's have a look at the design of the original Elite. It was a space combat game, to which trading was added to give meaning to the combat. You were a space trader, flying commodities from A to B, and if you chose the wrong system to do that in then you were attacked by pirates. Fact-of-game-life. If we are going to either remove interdictions completely, or make them avoidable (which they already are - by the mini game, or, if faced with someone with a good FSD interdictor, by the current ritual of submission then boost) what are we left with?
.
Now my ideas to make things more interesting would be to ramp up aspects of stealth when using supercruise - tie visibility of FSD to heat generation (faster = more visible), tie speed and acceleration to mass of ship and installed drive, allow certain modules to scramble position or present ghost FSD images (EM jammers effectively) to allow traders, smugglers and people who generally don't want to be noticed more options for evasion. But ultimately, there should always still be the possibility for things to go wrong, resulting in a fight for survival, or cargo contents.

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.

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.

 

[Commander Silex]

You don't fly anything bigger than an Asp, if even that. Do you? Come back after you've been operating in a Clipper or Python or T9 or Anaconda for a while.

That's a seperate issue really. The price of failure for traders is another thing that's been mentioned as a candidate for rebalancing. All the constituent parts need to be balanced right in the end, and one of them is preventing interdiction victims largely evading acts of piracy before they even begin.

 

[ICO_hr]

http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/strawman

Sorry, but no, dont pull this shenanigans on me. Read you thread name please and answer one simple question which is 'How FD are going to remove your choice'.

I really want to know what your answer is.

 

[ToniB]

People like you, they cry "play solo"
are the first to cry if all traders solo play and you've got nothing left to hunt.

if any trader can avoid any fight, isnt it the same anyway?^^

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

Or maybe you are.

nope im not.

 

[dioogio]

i agree, unfortunalty fd gave into the careless carebearers and made any zone same safe.

Talk of carebearers (people who carry cares around??) just makes everything else you say just sound childish.

The mistake FD has made has been to completely fail to apply a penalty system that is effective.
If attacking or interdicting in civilised and supposedly safe space resulted in a response that was meaningful rather than a petty bounty that can be paid off immediately, then civilised space would be safer. The wanted status should attract lots of tough NPC authority vessels and bounty hunters that will literally chase you out of the system , or kill you.
Having committed a crime in a safe system it should be a very dangerous place for you to be (just as an unsafe system should be dangerous for a trader).
Although I don't have an answer to stop one from jumping out immediately to go clear their warranty... perhaps authority vessels should jump in almost immediately after an interdiction?? Unrealistic I know but so what.

In an anarchy or remote un-secure system you can carry out hostile acts with much less risk.

This way the risk is there for both parties. Traders can travel in relative safety in safe systems, pirates and murderers can do the same in remote systems and anarchy systems.
And of course trying to clear your wanted status in one of the secure systems should be virtually impossible.

But, then I agree. Interdictions should then not be so easy to evade. Also interdictions by NPCs in safe systems should be rare or non existant.

So yes, make interdiction harder to evade but also make doing it in civilised space a very risky thing to do.

 

[Scoob]

Choice is critical, I agree with the OP on that 100%. However, said choice should not just be based on that moment of interdiction, it should be based also on the ship / equipment choices made by both parties up to that point.

I think we need to see a finer balance of FSD Size, Class, Ship mass and Interdictor size and class. A tiny ship like a Sidewinder being able to drag a well-equipped Type 6 out of SC purely because it's more manoeuvrable is a little silly. The advantage should be with the larger ship. If the smaller ship IS successful though - due to the pilots skill at the mini-game - then the smaller faster ship should be able to easily catch the lumbering trader. However, even a basic Type 6 can have teeth...well, two of them, so the Sidewinder might have a hard time. Seems a nicely balanced encounter.

If we flip this around and have a player in an Anaconda Interdicting a Viper or Cobra, the mini-game favours the larger and better-equipped Anaconda, however, once in normal space - either by mini-game win or submission - the balance if different. A Viper or Cobra could of course run - they're faster - but equally such nimble craft have the choice to engage as well.

I'd also suggest that submission doesn't do anything screwy with FSD cool-downs, why should it - physics hasn't suddenly changed, unless they make interdiction cause the drive to run hot...might be interesting - however, a submission should potentially place both ships closer together when they emerge. So, there are pros and cons to both fighting the interdiction and submitting. Fight it and win and you're home free - interdictor should drop out of SC as their attempt has failed and suffer a standard FSD cool-down period - same as the victim would have if the interdictor had won the game. Fight it and loose, you take some damage (just to systems though, not hull) but you'll come out a little further away than if you submitted - which might be a critical advantage. So, fight it = I want to run, loose the fight and being placed a little further away still potentially gives that option. Submit and you can of course still try to run, but you'll be placed that little bit closer so be at a disadvantage.

Basically we have two extremes - the trader is "I don't want to be interdicted, I should be able to run" and the Pirate "No, I want to be able to interdict you shouldn't have the option to run". Each camps ability to do what THEY desire should be based on ship stats and player skill, no Interdictor > Victim hard rules and no artificial penalties.

I think some slight tweaks to the balance could make this fun, rather than simply frustrating for both sides of the argument. My ideal of balance basically boils down to:

- I'm BIGGER than you so I'm harder to interdict, but if you win / I submit you'll catch me easily in normal space but beware as I might out gun you!
- I'm SMALLER than you, so I'm easier to interdict, if I submit we'll emerge closer together, but I'm faster than you so might yet escape / I think I can still take you down

I touched briefly on the act of interdiction causing FSD drives to heat up - this alone might be the natural balance this particular interaction needs. A small, hot FSD cannot sustain an interdiction as long as a larger, cooler one whether one be the interdictor or the victim. A fleeing ship might in effect just have to "out cool" a pursuer. A successful interdiction could then see an increased FSD cooldown period for BOTH ships - so the Pirate has to hope they haven't bitten off too much - equally this then makes submitting a forced option due to heat if the victim wishes to avoid damage.

Basically, no "I win" insta-escapes and no "You loose" insta-interdictions, it's all about mass, equipment and skill. Just my thoughts on this rather contentious subject.

Scoob.

 

[flynnmichael81]

I completely disagree OP. At the moment the mechanic for escaping from an interdiction are too easy. nobody will ever try to fight the interdiction because submitting allows for escape 95 times out of 100. I agree with a much longer cooldown time for FSD after interdictions. Things need to be balanced out for those who want to play as a pirate. Traders earn so much that they can quickly replace anything they lose but pirates make a pittance or a loss. I'd love to play as a true pirate but its just not a viable option yet as traders just fly away.

(oh and I fly a Python gained from trading so I'm not biased against traders I just know it's too easy)

 

[CMDR Holy Hitman]

I suspect we're having a problem with semantics here, so let me clarify:

* In ED, there is NO possibility to truly avoid an interdiction _attempt_ by another player or NPC. To _avoid_, you must be able to _see_ potential danger ahead and change your route to simply not run into the danger in the first place. The ship radar display is far too cluttered and imprecise to clearly _see_ potential blips that might be trying to interdict you. In many cases, the radar give ZERO warning: no blips anywhere near by. You are just suddenly in the middle of an interdiction attempt.

So, in ED, the only option left to players is to "run" when they are snared in an interdiction attempt. Let's see how that plays out:

A. You could fight the interdiction itself and play the "escape interdiction" minigame. However, this has a huge cost: if you are less maneuverable than the ship interdicting you, you will lose, be yanked out of SC, and incur an automatic 10% hull damage. This is VERY costly, especially in the larger ships.

B. You could submit instantly to escape the potential cost of losing the interdiction mini-game, dodge some shots while boosting, and quickly jump back into FSD. Zero cost incurred, other than some lost time to the interdiction attempt.

In this current state of things, choosing response A is essentially choosing "to fight". Choosing response B is essentially choosing "to run".

+1 If you submit and boost, provided you've got shields. It's nigh impossible to kill the trader before they jump right back to SC. You might get through it's shields but no way you're going to kill it.

 

[Genus]

Glad to see FD breaking the mold.

Would be a great point if it were true. Truly breaking the mold really means you have already sculpted a new mold, which isnt the case. Now we're all being forced to try and nail the jelly to the wall.

Would be great to obtain line of sight, of a roadmap, or even changelogs for updates. As it stands, innovation is reactionary to fix issues and nowhere near best practice innovation.

 

[Sammey]

Agree 100% with OP.
Maybe consider an anti-interdiction module.... Takes up say 16 or even 32 cargo size units. Then trader makes a choice.
Travel safer or risk it all for extra cargo.
I fly a Python in solo now days. Interdiction's are just a weird mechanic right now in open. Maybe if i could at least see them coming on radar I would consider open play again while trading.
Sorry. But making it easier for one sided pvp on traders will keep them in solo.
Just my opinion right now. Subject to change as game evolves of course...

 

[CMDR Holy Hitman]

The "running" mechanics can be part of the challenge, if designed right. Nowhere in my OP did I say "avoid 100%" or "run successfully 100%". I simply brought up the issue that the _choice_ to avoid or run should be there. That said, it follows logically that the avoid/run mechanics should be successful _most_ of the time when applied with _skill_.

But as interdiction stands right now?

* The interdiction _attempt_ is unavoidable. You can't see it coming most of the time and take steps to avoid even the atttempt.
* If you choose to fight the attempt (play the minigame), the faster, more maneuverable ship has a 100% inherent advantage.
* The above bullet by itself is bad enough, but the salt in the wound is that losing the minigame is an instant 10% hit on your hull which cost big credits to repair.
* Whether interdiction is lost or submitted to, in the current state of things, at least a player who _chooses_ to run can do so successfully, some skill is still required, regardless of what some of you may claim. Especially if it's an interdiction by another player who is geared specifcially for interdiction PvP.


Seriously it's been said hundreds of times, if you don't want players to interdict you, stay away from hubs or play solo.

The problem I have is largely with the fourth bullet above. What FD has been describing is making the choice to run once you've been interdicted essentially impossible. It's the equivalent of making snares or stunlocks last much much longer than they already do. Which is the wrong course of action if that's all that changes. Instead, they first need to either balance the cost element and/or add more intelligent counters to an attempt to snare-lock or stun-lock you.l

* The interdiction _attempt_ is unavoidable. You can't see it coming most of the time and take steps to avoid even the attempt.- The scanner size can be decreased, it's not that hard to notice a ship coming up behind you. Don't fly in a strait line either. Npc interdictions are harder to avoid than players, there's often so many of them. when you see a player flying near you be prepared for him to try to interdict you and use evasive maneuvers... not hard.

* If you choose to fight the attempt (play the mini game), the faster, more maneuverable ship has a 100% inherent advantage. - Only fools play the mini game, sure the smaller ship is more maneuverable, but anyone that understands the mechanics, submits and boosts back to SC with barley a scratch on their shields.

* Whether interdiction is lost or submitted to, in the current state of things, at least a player who _chooses_ to run can do so successfully, some skill is still required, regardless of what some of you may claim. Especially if it's an interdiction by another player who is geared specifically for interdiction PvP.- What skill is required in submit/boost?

Seriously it's been said hundreds of times, if you don't want players interdicting you either stay away from trade hubs or play solo.

 

[Dogoncrook]

Agree 100% with OP.
Maybe consider an anti-interdiction module.... Takes up say 16 or even 32 cargo size units. Then trader makes a choice.
Travel safer or risk it all for extra cargo.
I fly a Python in solo now days. Interdiction's are just a weird mechanic right now in open. Maybe if i could at least see them coming on radar I would consider open play again while trading.
Sorry. But making it easier for one sided pvp on traders will keep them in open.
Just my opinion right now. Subject to change as game evolves of course...

You can see them coming and when a player is trying to interdict they appear as a triangle. Jump into a system with a hollow triangle it's time to leave or fight.

It's pretty clear a lot of you are playing in dangerous systems and then complaining about the danger. You can sc in sol all day long and won't be interdicted. I've idled chatting for 30 Mins in sol without issue. In UV ceti I refuel a lot because nobody will ever spawn there. Luytens star, procyon, toolfa, etc all safe as can be, no interdictions. Pop into avik and you will be harassed mercilessly, as you should it's a pirate controlled anarchy.

So my advice is get out of the bad neighborhoods if you aren't looking for a fight.

 

[tdquasar]

I completely agree with OP. Nice argument.

 

[Loskene]

The "running" mechanics can be part of the challenge, if designed right. Nowhere in my OP did I say "avoid 100%" or "run successfully 100%". I simply brought up the issue that the _choice_ to avoid or run should be there. That said, it follows logically that the avoid/run mechanics should be successful _most_ of the time when applied with _skill_.

But as interdiction stands right now?

* The interdiction _attempt_ is unavoidable. You can't see it coming most of the time and take steps to avoid even the atttempt.
* If you choose to fight the attempt (play the minigame), the faster, more maneuverable ship has a 100% inherent advantage.
* The above bullet by itself is bad enough, but the salt in the wound is that losing the minigame is an instant 10% hit on your hull which cost big credits to repair.
* Whether interdiction is lost or submitted to, in the current state of things, at least a player who _chooses_ to run can do so successfully, some skill is still required, regardless of what some of you may claim. Especially if it's an interdiction by another player who is geared specifcially for interdiction PvP.

The problem I have is largely with the fourth bullet above. What FD has been describing is making the choice to run once you've been interdicted essentially impossible. It's the equivalent of making snares or stunlocks last much much longer than they already do. Which is the wrong course of action if that's all that changes. Instead, they first need to either balance the cost element and/or add more intelligent counters to an attempt to snare-lock or stun-lock you.l

Well if the escape attempt is a challenge in itself roughly equal to what you'd be facing if you stayed, sure, I'm for that. That's basically how interdiction is now, except for the submit-boost scenario the devs have said they'll be fixing. So I'm not too worried about that.
The attempt is generally hard to avoid, yes, but you know what they say; knowledge is power. Having a good idea how the interdiction mechanics work goes a long way towards being able to predict one. Currently interdiction is only viable on an approach vector to a gravity well (assuming both parties begin in deep space outside of each other's interdiction range), as the ship in front will slow down at a greater rate than the ship behind, decreasing the distance between them until it approaches but never reaches 0. So this is generally the only time you need to be on your guard. Aiming to overshoot and pitching down and throttling to 75% when your destination is 4 seconds away, then aiming back at it when your speed reduces to normal, is one way of watching your ass on a station approach without losing time. Always keep an eye on your radar and assume that anyone directly behind you might try to interdict you, no matter how far away they are.
The second one isn't true, otherwise I'd never be able to interdict an eagle in an asp. The minigame difficulty is dependant on both ships' course and speed, so in reality the faster ship has a better advantage, and supercruise speed for all ships is determined by the local gravity with a little wiggle room given to throttle control. Fly fast and hard and you won't get stopped, or fly fast and hard and have good aim and you can likewise brute force an interdiction.
If you're going to lose the minigame, submit and hope you decelerate in time to avoid damage. Remember the interdiction can complete before you finish slowing down, and still take damage as a result. Plan ahead.
Holding the boost key and charging the FSD when the cooldown finishes is not skill. That's not even on par with NPC thinking.

So yes, I'd say I agree the escape mechanics need work, but we know they're already working on it, so let's just sit back and see what happens.

 

[Yokai]

...Only fools play the mini game, sure the smaller ship is more maneuverable, but anyone that understands the mechanics, submits and boosts back to SC with barley a scratch on their shields.

Seriously it's been said hundreds of times, if you don't want players interdicting you either stay away from trade hubs or play solo.

It's pretty clear a lot of you are playing in dangerous systems and then complaining about the danger.
So my advice is get out of the bad neighborhoods if you aren't looking for a fight.

There are no "good systems" yet. Interdiction happens everywhere. Even in a 500 Ly zone around inhabited space.

And interdiction happens in solo too. Not just weenie NPCs either. I've been interdicted by Pythons and Asps since 1.1. Not local system authority versions of these: actual NPC pirate versions.

 

[Ralph Vargr]

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.

Unfortunately, there is now no way to unlink solo and open play from each other. A stand-alone game, with a selectable difficulty level would have been ideal, but that is not going to happen, now.

 

[Kero]

What most of you seem to be missing here is if you can easily escape every interdiction then interdictions become meaningless, and the entire facet of piracy becomes pointless and obsolete. If everyone can easily run away, you can't make money in piracy and therefore piracy has been eliminated among the player base. This in turn creates more trolls, quitters, and folks forced into trading for lack of anything else to do (all other jobs are basically broken or unbalance).

It's kind of funny how when the game was introduced as multiplayer, you all got so excited and yet here it is and most of you want nothing to do with it. Which leads to one inevitable conclusion, the game's overall design is flawed as it doesn't create a community for all. Players have chosen to either isolate themselves, troll and harass well meaning players due to boredom, or give up playing altogether.

Years ago, I read this really awesome forum post from a game designer at RIOT regarding game design theory. I wish I could find it and send it to FD because they sorely need lessons in the fundamentals.

 

[Roybe]

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.

When wings are inserted, all this goes away. When a group can interdict together, the playing field gets leveled. It will be obvious a person is being followed by a group in supercruise, so there still will be choice, fly well or fly away. In short, hang tight, 'cause you ain't seen nuthin' yet.

 

[Dogoncrook]

There are no "good systems" yet. Interdiction happens everywhere. Even in a 500 Ly zone around inhabited space.

And interdiction happens in solo too. Not just weenie NPCs either. I've been interdicted by Pythons and Asps since 1.1. Not local system authority versions of these: actual NPC pirate versions.

They do not happen in sol, or at least I've never seen or expierienced one there. There are good systems. The edges of inhabited space shouldn't be safe. I'm not sure what some of the major trade hubs are like but sol is safe and so are the surrounding systems. Try them out.

Edit: I guess I should add I'm neutral with everyone because I just cleared my save but with negative rep this may be different I have no idea if that has an effect.

 

[JohnMalcolm]

Players already do have the choice to run or fight. They just might not be successful with the choice they make. A twisting of the gameplay to ensure that escape is always successful would break far more than it fixes. Equip your ship properly. Practice avoiding interdictions.