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

[Yokai]

Surely this is why trading is designed to be so profitable in Elite Dangerous - so that people choose to play as the 'prey', because there is actually a reason to do so! If trading offered no advantages over other careers, nobody would choose to be the prey... but as it is, people do, because the payoff is worth it.

I can see where you're coming from, but generally your posts seem to come from the basic stance of fundamental opposition to anyone in Open doing something that you might not be able to push a button and say 'no' to, with 100% effectiveness. I'm sure you have a very valid point about ArcheAge but then again, if the human race had given up the first time a vehicle with wings failed to stay afloat we wouldn't even have Elite as a game right now.

One word: ArcheAge.

See how well this same essential design worked out for XLGames and Trion Worlds. There were _many_ of us in alpha/beta warning Trion to adjust this basic design flaw. Nobody wants to do all the work just to be robbed at gunpoint with UNEQUAL risk/reward by another player.

https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=archeage financials

Also, nowhere in the OP nor in any of my posts in this thread have I asked for a "push a button and say 'no' with 100% effectiveness". Instead, I have asked only for balanced risk/reward in the interdiction mechanics and post-interdiction mechanics.

I used to play a game called 'the hidden' - sometimes you would hunt, sometimes you were hunted; both playstyles were a lot of fun.

So yes, nothing wrong with being the meat for the grinder: especially if you manage to escape or break said grinder...

Needless to say that I don't agree with your views on how FD should design their game - I mainly trade by the way

Question: was the risk/reward of playing either role roughly equal?

 

[kapitankev]

I have great suspicion of players who play in solo mode.....I can understand some just want to play against the environment but if you were to make your millions then come back into open in a heavily armed beast. It just smells of cheat to me.

The more I think about it solo/open should be exclusive. If it were it might provide an incentive for traders to stick it out and see what changes the game will bring us.

 

[Commander Silex]

One word: ArcheAge.

See how well this same essential design worked out for XLGames and Trion Worlds. There were _many_ of us in alpha/beta warning Trion to adjust this basic design flaw. Nobody wants to do all the work just to be robbed at gunpoint with UNEQUAL risk/reward by another player.

https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=archeage financials

I'll take a look over dinner, but I'd be curious to know if ArcheAge or Trion had:

a) A simple system to switch game modes for those who didn't want unwanted pvp interaction.
b) p2p or client server models. Important as in the latter you are essentially forced to play with people on your server, whereas in the former it's both a degree of lucky dip along with certain not entirely supported methods of adjusting who you meet.
3) A blocking system that largely reduces your chances of meeting unwanted players again.

Also, nowhere in the OP nor in any of my posts in this thread have I asked for a "push a button and say 'no' with 100% effectiveness". Instead, I have asked only for balanced risk/reward in the interdiction mechanics and post-interdiction mechanics.

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

That's essentially what you're asking for in the title, and if you only mean the option - that's already in place, in the process of being balanced and certainly not lacking entirely. There's absolutely a whole raft of things that need to be beefed up reagrding meaningful consequences for continued criminality, a working Piracy sub culture and Wings so players can both defend in groups and hunt in groups. But to imply traders currently have no choice, no options and are simply sitting ducks at the mercy of any pirate they fall prey to is distorting the issue.

 

[Skuli]

I have great suspicion of players who play in solo mode.....I can understand some just want to play against the environment but if you were to make your millions then come back into open in a heavily armed beast. It just smells of cheat to me.

The more I think about it solo/open should be exclusive. If it were it might provide an incentive for traders to stick it out and see what changes the game will bring us.

I think open play has sufficiently broken mechanics now that it'd be foolish to ask players to choose.

Bring this back up in six months when (if?) things like docking permissions and whatnot are resolved. I had a guy sitting on an outpost's only medium dock for almost ten minutes last night before I finally quit and docked in single-player mode.

it's like WoW where only one person can talk to the auctioneer at a time.

 

[Indy Original]

One word: ArcheAge.

See how well this same essential design worked out for XLGames and Trion Worlds. There were _many_ of us in alpha/beta warning Trion to adjust this basic design flaw. Nobody wants to do all the work just to be robbed at gunpoint with UNEQUAL risk/reward by another player.

https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=archeage financials

Also, nowhere in the OP nor in any of my posts in this thread have I asked for a "push a button and say 'no' with 100% effectiveness". Instead, I have asked only for balanced risk/reward in the interdiction mechanics and post-interdiction mechanics.




Question: was the risk/reward of playing either role roughly equal?

When I look at the trader / pirate payoffs in Elite Dangerous, I see it as two guys betting on a horse at ten to one. The Trader bets £100; if he wins, he gets £1000, but if he loses, he loses £100. The Pirate bets £5, hoping to win £50; but if he loses, he only loses £5. Sure, there is an unequal punishment for failure, but there is also an unequal payoff as well... the point is, in real life, people DO sometimes bet £100 on horses, and even though the risk is higher, because (in their opinion) it is worth the risk.

I don't know about Archeage, but I know that if the risk/reward for Interdictions was balanced as you suggest, it would be like saying that if the trader's horse wins he gets £1000, but if it doesn't win the trader only loses the same £5 that the pirate loses... and if that was the case, nobody would ever play as the pirate! If trading is more profitable than piracy, it must also be potentially more risky, too... it must be!

 

[Roybe]

Ok... I'm listening.

I am also. And how does it related to Elite: Dangerous. Because my statement above is exactly how the game was designed, for the reasons stated. Because YOU do not like to play in that environment doesn't mean that others agree with you. I play in open as a trader, almost exclusively, and have been interdicted by PC's plenty of times and have boosted out EVERY SINGLE TIME. I have honestly dropped cargo for at least one player because I felt sorry for them, they couldn't catch me and keep me. The game is inherently unfair to pirates, and in turn bounty hunters, because the game has catered to the trade players since before release.

This game is not designed for PvP interactions. It IS designed to force all players to play cooperatively.

 

[Skuli]

When I look at the trader / pirate payoffs in Elite Dangerous, I see it as two guys betting on a horse at ten to one. The Trader bets £100; if he wins, he gets £1000, but if he loses, he loses £100. The Pirate bets £5, hoping to win £50; but if he loses, he only loses £5. Sure, there is an unequal punishment for failure, but there is also an unequal payoff as well... the point is, in real life, people DO sometimes bet £100 on horses, and even though the risk is higher, because (in their opinion) it is worth the risk.

In my T7, I bet 2.5 million dollars (insurance + cargo). If I win, I get 200k if I'm on a REALLY hot trading loop. If I lose, I lose 2.5 million.

I lost three times in a row a few days ago. It will take me weeks to recover from that.

 

[Commander Silex]

In my T7, I bet 2.5 million dollars (insurance + cargo). If I win, I get 200k if I'm on a REALLY hot trading loop. If I lose, I lose 2.5 million.

I lost three times in a row a few days ago. It will take me weeks to recover from that.

This is why we need some form of cargo insurance.

 

[Faerie]

I just want to say that this is one of the most interesting threads I've seen for some time, & thanks to all who have contributed positively to it.
However, it does leave me wondering whether interdiction itself is fundamentally flawed in that it creates a "victim/perp" & hence inherently adversarial situation ? Little wonder there seems to be no common ground between the two viewpoints.

 

[Roybe]

In my T7, I bet 2.5 million dollars (insurance + cargo). If I win, I get 200k if I'm on a REALLY hot trading loop. If I lose, I lose 2.5 million.

I lost three times in a row a few days ago. It will take me weeks to recover from that.

What part of "There's someone pirating in my trade loop, I'd better stop trading around here for a while.." did you miss. "Fool me once, shame on you. 'Fool' me twice, shame on me."

 

[Lave Trader]

Question: was the risk/reward of playing either role roughly equal?

For me this nails the reason why ED developers could be making interdictions EASIER to avoid not harder, but not necessarily by default. Let me explain. In an interdiction scenario the pirate risks close to zero, the trader risks everything. Where's the balance? I've seen some some interesting comments about NPC wingmen, cargo insurance, how to balance the damage/cooldown/speed of ships but they all seem very complicated. Maybe I'm just being too simple-minded but...

... if you're going to let Pirates invest in a device that can pull someone out of supercruise, let traders invest in a device that can [avoid | help avoid] being pulled out of supercruise.

Seems simple enough to me. If you want to be a trader tool-up your ship with avoidance capabillites. If you want to be a pirate tool-up offensively. Right now, I'm only seeing options for varying types of power, shields & weaponry, essentially all offensive capabilities. There are no avoidance/defensive capabilites... lets see some [expensive if need be] cloaking, interdiction avoidance, emergency jump drives and the like.

 

[Skuli]

This is why we need some form of cargo insurance.

I mentioned it in a previous post which got NO responses.

Add cargo insurance, and let the pirate take a cut if you're interdicted/killed? A T7 or T9, or Python could generate hundreds of k in credit for the pirate and only cost the player 50 to 25% of his normal cargo restock cost.

 

[Roybe]

For me this nails the reason why ED developers could be making interdictions EASIER to avoid not harder, but not necessarily by default. Let me explain. In an interdiction scenario the pirate risks close to zero, the trader risks everything. Where's the balance? I've seen some some interesting comments about NPC wingmen, cargo insurance, how to balance the damage/cooldown/speed of ships but they all seem very complicated. Maybe I'm just being too simple-minded but...

... if you're going to let Pirates invest in a device that can pull someone out of supercruise, let traders invest in a device that can [avoid | help avoid] being pulled out of supercruise.

Seems simple enough to me. If you want to be a trader tool-up your ship with avoidance capabillites. If you want to be a pirate tool-up offensively. Right now, I'm only seeing options for varying types of power, shields & weaponry, essentially all offensive capabilities. There are no avoidance/defensive capabilites... lets see some [expensive if need be] cloaking, interdiction avoidance, emergency jump drives and the like.

I agree. It should also take up one of the larger bays in the ship. It is risk vs. reward that way. Want to take bigger chances run more cargo. The only problem I have with this is that the drop and run is so easy currently IF traders would make the trade off for bigger shields and thrusters...but they don't. They continually fly with a 3A shield and cry when they can't last long enough to get away from an interdiction. Put a 4 or a 5 shield in that crate with an A rated thruster, throw away the armaments and you can boot scoot boogey out of any interdiction no problem.

 

[ChrisUK27]

In my T7, I bet 2.5 million dollars (insurance + cargo). If I win, I get 200k if I'm on a REALLY hot trading loop. If I lose, I lose 2.5 million.

I lost three times in a row a few days ago. It will take me weeks to recover from that.

May I ask why you went back after the first and second losses or was this in different systems?

 

[Roybe]

I mentioned it in a previous post which got NO responses.

Add cargo insurance, and let the pirate take a cut if you're interdicted/killed? A T7 or T9, or Python could generate hundreds of k in credit for the pirate and only cost the player 50 to 25% of his normal cargo restock cost.

To me, cargo insurance just removes more risk from the trader. Why invest in better defense when they can just use insurance to cover the risk. Traders make a choice every time they leave a station. Maximize profits or offset those profits by increasing your defense. Where traders make their mistake is by not including ship loss in their expected calculations of profit. There are enough threads on these forums from traders complaining that the AI/NPC's are unfair and need to be nerfed. Until traders play with expectations of loss, there is no hope for changing the basis of how this game is going to be played. Trading trumps all, everybody else loses.

 

[Indy Original]

In my T7, I bet 2.5 million dollars (insurance + cargo). If I win, I get 200k if I'm on a REALLY hot trading loop. If I lose, I lose 2.5 million.

I lost three times in a row a few days ago. It will take me weeks to recover from that.

Okay, that's harsh - but that's because you got completely blown up 3 times, and piracy isn't meant to be the same as murder. I would be all in favour of introducing more serious penalties for player-killing, but it should also be easier to simply steal cargo... that way, instead of losing 2.5million, you would only have lost maybe 20 or 30k. If that had happened 3 times, it would have been much easier for you to swallow, and actually more rewarding for the pirate too!

 

[tagos]

In my T7, I bet 2.5 million dollars (insurance + cargo). If I win, I get 200k if I'm on a REALLY hot trading loop. If I lose, I lose 2.5 million.

I lost three times in a row a few days ago. It will take me weeks to recover from that.

And each time the pirate risked nothing whatsoever.

 

[drwoo]

Be thankful that when you get blown up all the cargo goes with it... Imagine if you "dropped" all your cargo when you were killed.

 

[Skuli]

What part of "There's someone pirating in my trade loop, I'd better stop trading around here for a while.." did you miss. "Fool me once, shame on you. 'Fool' me twice, shame on me."

This was solo actually. I got very unlucky in my choice of interdictors.

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

Okay, that's harsh - but that's because you got completely blown up 3 times, and piracy isn't meant to be the same as murder. I would be all in favour of introducing more serious penalties for player-killing, but it should also be easier to simply steal cargo... that way, instead of losing 2.5million, you would only have lost maybe 20 or 30k. If that had happened 3 times, it would have been much easier for you to swallow, and actually more rewarding for the pirate too!

My suggestion is for interdiction submission to just immediately dump like 10% of your cargo into space. As in, submitting to interdiction means you're voluntarily giving up your cargo.

 

[Roybe]

And each time the pirate risked nothing whatsoever.

They are GUARANTEED hull damage. If you are uncooperative, you also cost them ammo if they take you out.

Seriously, try pirating for a while and see what you think about it. Don't even bother doing it against PC's. Just go to solo and try to pirate. It is barely profitable at all wtih the smaller ships, try it in an Asp or better and you lose money, just in repair bills. You make even less pirating a PC. Pirating is broken, and with it, bounty hunting.

As a trader there are 2 choices, either increase your defenses and run away in Open or drop cargo and run away. Either is successful 99.9% of the time.