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

[Yokai]

Of course all the risk is on the trader, they're out in space on their own with lots and lots of valuable goods....

Why would there be any financial risk to the pirate? I can't think of any real life scenario where a bandit or pirate ever had anywhere near the financial risk involved in a raid as their target. That would just be silly.

I would say there should be a larger legal risk.....the police response could be quicker, possibly having police drop into the interdiction zone could be fun. or some kind of help beacon traders could set off....visible in SC to other NPCs and players....a flashing red USS or something similar.

Or there's the screamingly obvious fighter escort option.........the changes to interdiction sound spot on, they'll only encourage cooperative play over the deathmatch style one on one play we've seen up to now.

I agree with your real world analogy, but it falls short when applied to this game now, or any game, really.

Real-world thieves/bandits/pirates run the real risk of being jailed or killed. Game over. Permanently. Would the "pirate" players of ED be happy if they were permanently banned from the game, or banned for multiple months or years? I don't think so.

 

[TeeWee]

Hello


Maybe we can create a win - win situation. I'm not rich, just a pretty well outfitted Adder and about 600.000 in cash. Would 5 tons of Palladium be fine?

If you're nearby (currently in the vicinity of Zaragas) and I have time (Tuesday evening GMT most likely!) I'm game. A reward is appreciated, but not necessary at all. In fact, I will have to rekit my Viper to actually hold some cargo at all so it's actually a hassle for me

PM if interested!

 

[Skuli]

You're conflating the scope of the "reward". In the larger sense of the entire game, every player has equal access to "reward". Anyone can trade. Anyone can BH. Anyone can pirate. Anyone can explore. Yes, there is an imbalance in terms of the three main paths (combat, trade, exploration) having inequal income flow, but that is a completely different _scope_ of imbalance than what the OP or this thread is about.

This thread is specifically about interdiction mechanics and the risk-reward balance between the interdictor and the interdicted. Nothing more, nothing less.

I posted some thoughts on this just a little while ago: https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php?t=115305

Alter interdiction behaviour, and no longer clear WANTED status on player death. Submitting to an interdiction causes hull damage to interdictor only, and automatically ejects XX% of interdictee's cargo. Leave interdictee's reduced FSD cooldown.

If someone attempts to evade the interdiction and fails, attacker takes no damage, target takes hull damage and has a lengthy FSD cooldown.

If cargo is minimal or no cargo, or target is WANTED, there should not be an option to submit to the interdiction.

This change would completely remove the ability for traders to evade interdiction scott-free. It's not perfect, only a very rough idea; there are considerations that have to be made for explorers, and to keep people from buying 5 hydrogen fuel cells to benefit from the submit behaviour, but in general it would at least give pirates a more reasonable expectation of either some profit or a fair fight, and help minimize the submit-and-scoot method of evading ALL financial risk.

A WANTED status should last for a period of time (one hour? One day?), although the bounty should only be collectible once.

 

[drwoo]

No. It is not true that "traders are unhappy about interdictions costing them money". Well, some might be, but that's not the point of this thread, nor the OP, nor any of the points I've made so far in this thread.

The point of this thread is that in the context of the _proposeed future changes to interdiction mechanics_ proposed by Sandro Sanmarco (read up a few pages to find the links), in any one interdictor-interdicted interchange, the entire process is an unbalanced risk versus reward proposition. The interdictor has significant advantages in the mechanics and a far likier outcome for success. Even the devs say this is currently the case, and they have no plan yet to change that fundamental imbalance. Also, the proposed interdiction changes will actually reduce the ability of the trader to run successfully after being interdicted. This by itself would be no issue if the risk-reward balance between the typical interdictor ship and the trading ship in this "cage match" scenario were balanced. But right now it is not balanced. Most risk is on the trader and far less risk is on the interdictor.

The person doing the interdiction "should" have the upper hand. Not only because they have the initiative (going back to the D&D paper pencil) but also because they are not a hauler, they are more nimble and should have that advantage. Making it balanced gives the trader even less risk than they already have.

 

[OrLoK]

Hello there

if interdiction becomes harder to avoid or escape from the pirate is tougher (i dont mind being interdicted, i mostly escape with maneuvers) and the onus is put on escorts, I do hope the devs remember not all of us are social animals and dont have chums (or indeed want) to play with and that a hiring of AI Mercenary solution is considered.

Rgds

LoK

 

[Fian]

I'm pretty sure that the interdiction game is based on: skill of target vs skill of hunter to stay on target / escape vector; interdictor class (better interdictors would logically mean better odds for hunter); perhaps also FSD-class, with better FSD-class leads to better odds for prey.

This would be fair and comparable to combat: it's primarily skill based, but weapons loadout does matter and can compensate for (lack of) skill. So if you're not so good at escaping interdiction, get better equipment to gain an edge!

I don't think so. Almost all traders will have an A class FSD, it is the first upgrade priority after cargo hold for a trader. But trying to avoid an (NPC) interdiction in a T9 is not worth the time, it is faster to just submit, wait for colldown and then jump away, in an asp it is easy to avoid being interdicted.

I am takling NPC interdictions here - I have never yet been interdicted by a human. Which, now I think about it, makes me wonder why I bother getting involved in discussions like the one in this thread

 

[AnnuverScotinExile]

I'll keep banging this drum I suppose....

Traders should be at risk of interdiction by pirates in fighters armed to the teeth....a well armed fighter should be able to pretty much dictate the interdiction and battle with all but a specced freigters.

Setting out in a freighter packed full of rares with no fighter escort should be a very silly and dangerous thing to do. Interdictions should be mad easier.....trading should be a much tougher choice of career....going it alone shouldn't be an option in any but the most well policed systems.

What's the average Cr/hr on a rares run? It can be in the millions so I'm told....

A pirate is lucky to get 250k in an hour....

As I see it trading has been to easy for too long....certainly once the wings update arrives, interdiction should be made easier....FSD should be disabled for far longer....

This would force people to organise convoys, pirates will be forced to hunt in packs....it'll be great fun. The pirates themselves would need to bring along a freighter of their own to pickup all the cargo if they're lucky enough to catch a convoy unawares.

Changing the game so people can continue to space truck unhindered seems insane and most of all incredibly boring for all of us. The game should be changed to encourage conflict and cooperation. If that's not for you then you can fly Han Solo.

Nice to see the occasional voice of reason on this thread

 

[Marcns007]

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.

I totally agree, this is only going to move traders to solo and then when they uprate the AI's it will move them to another game.

FD do not think outside the box, there needs to be balance, but there also needs to be better counter measures if they insist on this; better chaff, better ECM, if you are in a system with a load of FED's why are you not able to hit a distress button if a wanted player/AI wants to shoot you down in a trading ship and not hold you to ransom.
The pirate tag is a joke, why can't the AI 'pirates' ask for cargo?

We are not dealing with pirates we are dealing with killers in a shoot em up

 

[RedCabbage]

Just my ha'penny: I agree that an interdiction jammer would be a very useful tool. Traders that want to avoid combat will have to sacrifice some cargo space to do so. The greedy ones that need every spare tonne are then taking the risk. It makes things more interesting for the pirate as well - it can't be much fun spotting a target and thinking the only risk you're taking is whether the target combat logs or not.

 

[Wescott]

They could have to depending upon the severity of their crimes not being allowed to undock for up to 30 days oh and perhaps have to clean all the station latrines during that time , but seriously a few days here and there not being allowed to undock would be more like RL prison they could introduce penal stations to put them in, maybe generate them a mini game for them to try and break jail, steal a ship to get away sooner; Think of the rep that would give them.

 

[AnnuverScotinExile]

Every player can trade.
The fact that trading is the best money right now is irrelevant: no player is prevented from increasing their personal cash by trading.

And every player can pirate. If you don't like the balance, play the other role.

 

[Yokai]

And every player can pirate. If you don't like the balance, play the other role.

https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php?t=114909&page=22&p=1789478&viewfull=1#post1789478

 

[Fian]

There is one more point to consider - If the balance for traders is significantly skewed by making interdictions more costly that ultimately hurts NEW traders and in real terms increases the "lead" that players who have already generated large profits enjoy. Those who already have an Anaconda can continue to truck along without much fear, especially in mobius/solo, those who are working their way up from a T6 will face a longer slog than those who have gone before them.

Incidentally it will also push more players towards trading in an Asp/Clipper/Python, but i don't see that as a negative really.

 

[TeeWee]

But ultimately it doesn't matter THAT much to traders how this is resolved - if it is a no-win scenario for traders they can make the same money in solo as in open. And most traders are trading to make money to fund other ships, we have the choice of flying in open only in ships which can hold their own and trading in mobius.

I'm focusing on this point: I strongly believe the AI should be just as dangerous as any player, with the full range of ability (poor pilots like me all the way to superhumans), so solo / group should not be safer than open at all. Of course, you get some "Must interdict all human traders" psychos, but that's all the difference that should be felt in terms of risk.

As I say this, the traders should also have the opportunity to hire escorts or trade in convoys to mitigate risk (at a Credit cost for employing guards / convoy). Also, security forces, as well as other interested third parties (including scavenger scum pirates that want in on the party!) should be able to enter the fray, and faction reputation of both parties should matter in the type of response from system security (as well as the security rating of the system itself).

But yes, all interdiction encounters are bad for the traders: interdiction is an act of violence. There are only less bad outcomes; but that should be the same, regardless of PvP interdiction scenarios vs NPC interdiction scenarios.

 

[Skuli]

Nice to see the occasional voice of reason on this thread

I don't agree at all that piracy should be as profitable as even T6 commodity trading.

Pirates have, do, and should always make less money than legitimate professions, for no other reason than they are self-limiting their income for personal reasons.

Here's the reality of piracy in modern times:



Poverty, low education, and abhorrent living conditions reign supreme, with piracy a desperate attempt to avoid starvation or enslavement.

It should be the exceedingly rare pirate that rises above the general stink and muck to become some sort of fantastically rich anti-hero.

 

[Sim Maker]

The person doing the interdiction "should" have the upper hand. Not only because they have the initiative (going back to the D&D paper pencil) but also because they are not a hauler, they are more nimble and should have that advantage. Making it balanced gives the trader even less risk than they already have.

So what about people who used broken code to rake in 100s of Millions in credits, who now have the best ships and weapons the sim has to offer, and who have practically nothing to loose in an interdiction, wanting to pounce on defenceless Noobs T-6s........now the "pirate" wants it even MORE in their favour?
.....
It will just drive people to Solo.........I really begin to wonder if this is game breaking....I mean, the game works, but the Devs have dug them selves a hole here, and they keep digging.........so maybe community breaking is a better phrase.....
.....
I wanted a sim where I could park up in an asteroid field in the middle of nowhere and mine, trade up ships to then explore.......wanted to play in Solo.......it was "kind of" ok on release, but recent tweeks because of this and other debates, and lead to such an increase in NPCs and FightFightFight the only realy "fun" thing left to do, is load up for Bear and go killing.............
.....
May as well ditch all the exploration stuff, mining, trading, becasue if this keeps going the way it is, it is just going to be another empty game world............you can't FORCE people to be your targets, they will switch off, and just play something else............

 

[TeeWee]

I don't think so. Almost all traders will have an A class FSD, it is the first upgrade priority after cargo hold for a trader. But trying to avoid an (NPC) interdiction in a T9 is not worth the time, it is faster to just submit, wait for colldown and then jump away, in an asp it is easy to avoid being interdicted.

I am takling NPC interdictions here - I have never yet been interdicted by a human. Which, now I think about it, makes me wonder why I bother getting involved in discussions like the one in this thread

I'm not sure if FSD is a component. Earlier poster suggested it, and I'm not experienced enough to know this for certain. I would like a component (FSD or otherwise) that would influence the interdiction game, just like a hunter can get a better interdiction unit. This would give the trader a choice in the matter.

 

[kapitankev]

I agree with your real world analogy, but it falls short when applied to this game now, or any game, really.

Real-world thieves/bandits/pirates run the real risk of being jailed or killed. Game over. Permanently. Would the "pirate" players of ED be happy if they were permanently banned from the game, or banned for multiple months or years? I don't think so.

Of course not, but a stiffer legal response would be adequate. Fast police response in "safe" systems. You can never expect the financial risk of the pirate to be comparable to that of the trader though. It never will be unless I bring some gold out with me just to make you feel better about the whole thing.

 

[ianw]

I don't agree at all that piracy should be as profitable as even T6 commodity trading.

Pirates have, do, and should always make less money than legitimate professions, for no other reason than they are self-limiting their income for personal reasons.

Here's the reality of piracy in modern times:

View attachment 15568

Poverty, low education, and abhorrent living conditions reign supreme, with piracy a desperate attempt to avoid starvation or enslavement.

It should be the exceedingly rare pirate that rises above the general stink and muck to become some sort of fantastically rich anti-hero.

One of them looks quite happy - perhaps he thinks they're playing "Simon says"!

 

[Theaghan Black]

I totally disagree with the OP. Being a traders can't be all a bed of roses. Sometimes you have to lose.

Piracy (and not murder) should be a real danger out there: the issue is that at the moment there are no "safe places" (aka heavily protected by the authorities) where profit is the lowest, while "piracy" is not a real ingame mechanic.

Players should be able to interdict traders only in not protected space (otherwise they should be fined for every interdiction) and the authorities' reaction should be fast (5 seconds after the interdiction) and lethal (authorities being not a bunch of useless AIs). That's the traders paradise but remember: "no risk = no profit".

On the other side, if you want real profit you have to pass through unsafe places.

I don't care about people claim here: this gameplay is unfinished, unbalanced and illogical.