Design 102 - A cautionary tale about "food chain" design

[Yokai]

Another recent thread whose OP premise was specifically scoped to discuss only the current interdiction mechanics versus the proposed future interdiction mechanics and its effect on all gameplay modes of ED kept getting sidetracked by many commentators into a discussion about the "right" of players who prefer to play a "pirate" playstyle to not have the game changed in a way that prevents them having a fair chance to catch their "prey", who can currently evade capture with nearly 100% success via submit-then-FSD tactics that the current submission mechanics allow for.

Let's get one thing absolutely clear before I continue: these players are right. I agree with them. There should indeed be a fair chance to catch one's prey. Got that? I agree.

But what I found interesting was the pervasive notion by nearly all the "pirates" throughout the thread that somehow ED is fundamentally designed around a "food chain" concept, whereby the balance between traders and pirates is that (paraphrasing) "the risk-reward balance between traders and pirates is that traders get the reward of making the most money, and run the risk of being hijacked by pirates. It's like the food chain: prey animals provide energy for the predators at the top of the food chain." (citation: here, here, and here, for just a few examples)

I do not agree with this "food chain" argument, and I feel it is fundamentally flawed. There are many other ways to entice players to interact with each other in a competitive way without creating bad blood and fractiousness among the playerbase. Which is clearly evident now in the huge amount of conversation (and outright trolling and flaming) about the legitimacy of the pirate playstyle/role/choice as a "core mechanic". But more fundamentally and realistically, I believe that a "food chain" design whereby some class of "predators" is entitled to feed off the time and effort of their "prey" has already been proven as flawed. In a word, the cautionary tale I want to point out to the FD designers and all the players involved in this argument is...

ArcheAge.

If you are not familiar with ArcheAge, it is a sandbox MMO (much anticipated here in the west and hailed as the second coming of real sandbox MMO gameplay) where a huge amount of player activity revolves around crafting, farming, mining, and commodity trading mechanics. There are two primary ways to make money and progress:

A. You can do a lot of time-intensive farming/mining with it's own long, grindy "crafter-style" progression on your own plot(s) of expensive land, which you then bundle into "trade packs", which you then cart some distance and sell to a vendor for profit. The farther and more dangerous your destination, the more money you make on the sale. The best money involves a long, expensive grind to build seafaring ships and try to make it to a vendor safely on the other side of the sea, sailing through dangerous waters filled with pirates.

B. Or, you can be a "pirate" who ambushes/attacks traders, fights them to the death, and then takes their trade pack to sell for yourself. They don't get the profit for their time and effort: you do.

C. The design argument behind this core mechanic of player interaction goes like this: "It's all about the fun risk versus reward of trading! Beat those evil pirates and win big! Feeling outmatched by all the hungry pirates trying to steal your time and hard work? No problem! Get a group of traders together in a convoy of big, expensive warships and beat down those nasty pirates! It's fun! Everyone has a blast! It's balanced! Hey, the pirates stand to lose just as much as you do! You might sink their expensive ships! It's amazing asymetrical gameplay! C'mon, we'll all have a great time together!

Except.... No. That's not really any kind of "balance", because the fundamental equation is this:

1. Player A spends 2 hours or more to prepare a trade pack in expectation of making X amount of money.
2. Player B shoots and kills Player A and makes that 2 hours worth of money for themselves. In one act of "piracy" that lasts 5 minutes at most.

But wait! You say. The pirate stands to lose just as much as the trader! The trader might win the fight and kill the pirate! They trader's ship might sink the pirate's ship! The smart and skilled traders will sail in huge convoys that outweigh the pirate convoys, and sink entire convoys of expensive pirate ships!

Except that's not what's imbalanced. The actual combat between a pirate and trader, or between a pirate ship and a trader ship, or between a pirate convoy and a trader convoy IS INDEED fundamentally balanced. (Unlike in ED today, where such combat between an interdicting pirate in a fast maneuverable ship geared specifically for interdiction and targeted component damage and a slower, less maneuverable trade ship with less firepower is an inherently unbalanced fight between pirate and trader.) But back to ArcheAge: what's still fundamentally imbalanced is the core "food chain" notion whereby Player A spends 2 hours in hope of X gain, while Player B spends 5 minutes to achieve the same gain while also totally denying the trader any gain for their 2 hours of effort.

Okay, so what's wrong with ArcheAge? You say. That actually sounds like fun!

Well, it might indeed be some players' idea of fun. But overall, not enough to be even close to financially successful for the developer. ArcheAge is a great cautionary tale both for FD and for us. Let's examine why:

1. Google "archeage financials". It's not a pretty picture either for XLGames nor for Trion Worlds.
2. When the devs don't make money because the game is simply not popular enough in the marketplace, the few players who do actually enjoy the game lose too.
3. "Predatory" competitive games where one side wins big and the other side loses big tend to attract the hackers and the people who love to cheat and use hacks. Because the stakes are so high. Possibly the stakes are high in terms of real world financial incentive, too, if the game allows for any RMT between players. (Fortunately FD at least knows enough to avoid RMT trading.)
4. Because of points 2 and 3, the player community tends to become vitrolic and divisive. Much bad blood is created on both sides. The players asking for better balance are trolled and flamed as "carebears" and "losers", and the players who enjoy the predator role and the "challenge" of the inherent imbalances are trolled and flamed as "jerks" and worse.

Again, there are _better_ ways to incentivize and reward players to interact competitively. ED doesn't have to be a "food chain" type of game.

And with that said, let's look more closely at the general declaration of what FD itself thinks ED is all about. This quote is the mission statement of the game directly from the home page of the site:


"Start with a small starship and a few credits, and do whatever it takes to get the skill, knowledge, wealth and power to stand among the ranks of the Elite.

400 Billion Star Systems. Infinite Freedom. Blaze Your Own Trail

In the year 3300, across the vast expanse of an epic, full-scale recreation of our Milky Way, interstellar rivalries flare as galactic superpowers fight proxy wars. Some may know you as an ally; others will call you a pirate, a bounty hunter, a smuggler, an explorer, an assassin, a hero... Fly alone or with friends, fight for a cause or go it alone; your actions change the galaxy around you in an ever unfolding story."

Please, tell me where, exactly, in this quote, is there ANY implication that:

* "Food chain" design is the core of the game
* Players who choose to roleplay a pirate are guaranteed the same income stream as players who chose to trade
* Players who choose to roleplay a pirate should have a mechanical and/or gear-based advantage over traders they prey upon
* Players who choose to roleplay a trader or explorer should not be able to successfully avoid pirates or to have the tools needed to succesfully run away from pirates.

Again, I am NOT NOT NOT claiming that traders should be able to escape pirates with 100% certainty. I am arguing only that in an interaction between a "pirate" and a "trader", NEITHER SIDE SHOULD HAVE AN INHERENT ADVANTAGE OVER THE OTHER. Balanced and equal gear options MUST exist in such exchanges. Whether or not a "trader" can successfully avoid or run from pirates should be 100% skill-based.

 

[Derath]

Players can successfully dodge pirates, pirates don't make anyway near the income of a trader so two of those aren't implicated or currently occur lol. Im not entirely sure gear based advantage comes into it as its a difference of equipment cargo or combat, very hard to equate them together and if you do, you generally won't get pirated (clipper/python/anaconda)

Edit: tbh i don't understand why you bring up the quote at all, it doesn't say anything I may as well say

Show me where it indicates traders will make 3x the income of every other role combined lol.

 

[Yokai]

Players can successfully dodge pirates

Yes. Right NOW they can (in 1.1). Proposed changes by Sandro Sanmarco would tip the balance in favor of the pirates. This thread (and the other "Design 101" thread were about pointing out that this is a mistake, IMO. Everyone else is entitled to their differing opinion and their differing arguments. Just keep your arguments to support your opinion on point. Don't move the goalposts or change the scope of my arguments, or bring up strawman counterarguments.

The revenue potential of pirating can be addressed in _many_ other ways besides saying "but the pirates deserve to eat the traders and take some of their profits". That's the "food chain" rationale.

If you think the "food chain" design is in fact a superior approach, then try explaining _why_ you think that's a better approach.

 

[Derath]

Yes. Right NOW they can (in 1.1). Proposed changes by Sandro Sanmarco would tip the balance in favor of the pirates.

whats he doing, removing FSD low cooldown for submitting? I'll give you a tip if you got interdicted you already failed to dodge a pirate lol

Edit as per your above post: I don't think its currently a food chain or intended to be, most traders run vastly undersized and under equipped ships flying with cargo space at the expense of anything else. How hard do you think it would be to escape an asp if he only fits 1 beam laser with E engines.

There are many advantages currently available for traders however they choose not to take them fairly often as I mentioned the greatest of all is don't get interdicted in the first place I have to do this all day vs bounty hunters it isn't challenging you just eyeball the radar for people obviously shadowing you and drop out of SC if necessary, you could also take the superb approach of being extremely good at the interdiction mini-game.

 

[AnnuverScotinExile]

The problem with the pirate role is not so much the role per se, but that FD have failed to implement it all. There are lots of interconnected features in the 'grand design' that give, as far as we can tell from just looking at them on paper, a coherent whole. But FD have implemented only bits of it effectively at random. Thus, for example, many traders run away to solo because FD have not implemented difficult AI and difficulty by system governance, and solo is therefore easy mode. Similarly, there are plans for 'proper' piracy with a functioning 'stand and deliver' mechanisms, and much greater penalties for murder than for 'piracy done properly'. But those consequences do not exist, you cannot do 'stand and deliver' in a way that the game knows you have done it, and there is a broken mechanism where you can evade all NPC interdictions, and many PC ones, by submitting and then boost, boost, boost, jump. With all the holes in the fabric of what FD intended, nothing works properly, and it is pretty futile to discuss what should be balanced/nerfed/buffed, because without all the bits, we don;t know what the balance is.

 

[Undisputed]

There is no issue in ed, just traders go solo/group, pirates stay to hunt for npc and themselves.

nice mmo...

 

[Yokai]

whats he doing, removing FSD low cooldown for submitting? I'll give you a tip if you got interdicted you already failed to dodge a pirate lol

Edit as per your above post: I don't think its currently a food chain or intended to be, most traders run vastly undersized and under equipped ships flying with cargo space at the expense of anything else. How hard do you think it would be to escape an asp if he only fits 1 beam laser with E engines. There are many advantages currently available for traders however they choose not to take them fairly often as I mentioned the greatest of all is don't get interdicted in the first place I have to do this all day vs bounty hunters it isn't challenging you just eyeball the radar for people obviously shadowing you and drop out if neccesary

A fair point in theory. I'll restate a few facts from that other 101 thread that depict the reality today:

I've playtested a Python "trader with teeth" configuration against NPC pirate interdictors extensively since 1.1 dropped. 4 turrets up top, one fixed beam on the bottom for taking out the pirate's shield as fast as possible when they get in front of me. Throttle + down-thruster tactics to keep the pirate in range of all 4 top-side turrents with 95% uptime (only lost when they boost to get away from the turrets), and ME out of range of their gimbals and fixed guns. Observations:

* NPC Cobras and Vipers of all stripes will die to this configuration before I take any hull damage.
* NPC Asps and larger will typically inflict about 12% hull damage at least before they die.
* NPC Pythons (yes, in Solo I get interdicted by NPC Pythons) will hurt me bad. I've won some and taken huge hull damage, and I've run from some. Remember, I'm not geared for combat and dogfighting and jousting and using long-range fixed weapons. I'm a "trader with teeth"

12% hull damage for me is 200,000 cr. It will up to 250,000 cr when I finally add my A7 powerplant.

A typical player can be in T6 or Asp in relatively no time. And therefore earning at a typical average rate of 100 or 120 tons times 12,000 cr/ton/hour. Do the math. How much time does a pirate in an A-classed Viper or Cobra need to spend in their T6/Asp to recoup the insurance loss on their ship, versus an A-classed Python pilot who loses not only the ship but roughly 2 million cr in cargo too? I'll summarize: 5-6 for the Pirate. 162 minutes for the Python "trader with teeth". Not even remotely balanced risk/reward.

One other observation: I know how to fly well outside the plane of the ecliptic, how to roll as needed to cluster the radar clutter into one narrow band (or spread things out and away from my immediate vicinity). I know how to watch for blips that appear to be tracking me and trying to get behind me for an interdiction. I also know to steer wide of USSes that appear near my flight path Here's the deal: right now in 1.1, in Solo mode, MANY NPC interdictions occur with ZERO visible foreshadowing. You are tooling along with clear space all around you and BAM! interdiction attempt. Others report this too. I am not alone.

 

[Titus Balls]

Nice writeup and I agree most peoples argument around this has the fatal flaw (that continues to crop up) that they confuse the role of Pirate with players who just go out to kill other players.

Pirates should always start out at the bottom of the rung and work their way up. The problem is that a single pirate in an Eagle can take down a T6 freighter easily. This I agree should be balanced.

Also pirates, as a role, should have to live out a life in anarchy systems - if they pop their heads into any high security systems expect to run and evade capture and destruction from the police. But a pirate SHOULD be able to have a fun and comfortable life outside of high security systems and on top of that be able to have adventure. If anything it might keep the space lanes a bit safer if there is something else to do - you know, bored kids will make trouble for other people.

Pirates can start out poor but have to aim to make it rich, or at least be able to fix their ship up from a scrape.

But as the game stands piracy as a role is a still birth and needs a lot of work to fix it. At the same time you can't just take away the role of murderer, but you should make it even harder for them to be able to survive outside of anarchy systems.

Another issue is ship class and design. Most people grind towards the Anaconda, or at least a Python and they SHOULD be viable piracy ships - but at the same time smaller trade ships should be able to easily evade or escape from them - Anaconda/Python should be roles for larger targets.

I hope with wings that it makes smaller ships as a pack more viable, and smaller ships SHOULD be more fun for this role.

 

[Cmdr Pli55ken]

I find no issue with the submit/boost/FSD evasion. In the original Elite pirates almost always appeared in groups. Once we get wings then you will probably have pirate clusters (and trade/protector clusters) . And with those it would be quite possible to interdict and single out one trader and bring him down before the time limit is up.

And pirating NPCs, as Undisputed quite rightly says, is very possible right now. Elite has always been a PvE (or at least PvE heavy) concept. That a tiny mechanic that isn't quite right for a tiny fraction of players during a tiny fraction of their gametime in a PvP context (whereas it works pretty well in the PvE context) shouldn't be cause to redesign the whole thing.

Show me where it indicates traders will make 3x the income of every other role combined

They do. But I don't think that's completely unbalanced. The high end trader ships are, after all, 3 times more expensive than the high end ships of all other professions (and in real life ship owners make a hell of a lot more money than miners, bounty hunters, police, smugglers, ... )

 

[Farmboy]

There are some emergent behaviours with the current mechanisms too which are a problem. These are often difficult to predict, but nevertheless affect the levels of fractiousness.

Consider:

1. when interdicted by an NPC pirate in an overmatched vessel, the simplest and easiest way to escape isn't to do anything clever, but to submit, boost FSD away. When I was using a hauler I only took hull damage once through my D class shields this way. So anyone who plays for a bit adopts this as standard practise. (Ok interdictions are up now on then, but the point can still be made).

2. when inderdicted by an NPC psycho who fires straight away, Boost, FSD is even more the right tactic.

3. when interdicted by a PC psycho you still want to do this.

4. when interdicted by a PC pirate you're conditioned to do this, so you do.

5. when you are a PC pirate and interdict a PC trader, you pretty much have to fire straight off since by the time you have typed 'stand and deliver' they're already boosting away. Unless you communicate before you interdict, or interdict them again, you lose a lot of time by trying to communicate, which makes your chance of getting anything lower.

6. when interdicted by a PC in my defenseless hauler, I don't know if they are a pirate or a psycho. So I run. So they both fire on me, convincing me that all PC interdicters are psychos. So I always run.

...

So you get a self reinforcing patterns of behaviour where PC interdictions nearly always cause the interdictor to fire without talking, and the interdicted to nearly always flee at max speed.

Now NPC pirates don't have the problem of trying to steer and type comms at the same time, so you nearly always get some sort of canned blurb from them. What would be useful is a way for PC pirates to be more easily able to send pro-forma comms by hotkey to their target. So if you could set up a hotkey to send a specific piece of text to the current locked target, and thus lose less time typing rather than piloting, it might ameliorate some of the emergent patterns above.

Another approach (though possibly this would be less popular) is that after coming out of FSD both parties power systems are sufficiently scrambled that neither can steer, fire, boost etc for a couple of seconds. A long enough pause in which there wouldn't be much to do except comms. I can see problems with this approach if there are more than 2 parties, or someone else joins that instance bubble at some time delay.

 

[Sim Maker]

So, why don't pirates adapt their tactics and attack traders as they approach their destination stations?......Attack while he is trying to line up on the letter box?.....
....
Gutless? Want an easy target? What is it?..........Why do you want it made easy, to shoot a Hauler, with an Anaconda?

 

[natte hond]

its pretty futile to discuss what should be balanced/nerfed/buffed, because without all the bits, we don;t know what the balance is.

for those just around the corner its all there is to discus.
and for those who have been there from the start its just as vague cos no one knows whats still to be implemented.
still cant say its pointless.
if the community seems satisfied we never are going to get a optimized game.

 

[Skip Intro]

<redacted>

 

[DrDeathO5]

The problem with the pirate role is not so much the role per se, but that FD have failed to implement it all. There are lots of interconnected features in the 'grand design' that give, as far as we can tell from just looking at them on paper, a coherent whole. But FD have implemented only bits of it effectively at random. Thus, for example, many traders run away to solo because FD have not implemented difficult AI and difficulty by system governance, and solo is therefore easy mode. Similarly, there are plans for 'proper' piracy with a functioning 'stand and deliver' mechanisms, and much greater penalties for murder than for 'piracy done properly'. But those consequences do not exist, you cannot do 'stand and deliver' in a way that the game knows you have done it, and there is a broken mechanism where you can evade all NPC interdictions, and many PC ones, by submitting and then boost, boost, boost, jump. With all the holes in the fabric of what FD intended, nothing works properly, and it is pretty futile to discuss what should be balanced/nerfed/buffed, because without all the bits, we don;t know what the balance is.

100% right... to many people think balancing / nerfing stuff is a solution. What they fail to realise is that the way the game is made up at the moment it just isn't possible to balance things.
The discussions will be never-ending because the basic framework just isn't ready/complete... or fails to deliver basic functionalities/consequences of choice etc...


I proposed another solution however ... which could restore balance because players get more options:
Security levels in relation to Faction Rankings (with both downsides and upsides!!!)

Showing Colours!!! https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php?t=115700

 

[Derath]

If were talking NPC interdictions you are correct they generally just appear, or aren't on the radar at all they are usually inferior to players at the minigame though, their difficulty is currently tied to your combat rank and some of the pythons/condas i get interdicting me I would have a huge issue with flying a T9 so thats a fair point.

I'm glad you chose the python as the trader with teeth as i'm most familiar with that - a few considerations.

make sure you run 4 pips shields, extra important with a smaller shield, you can also drop a measly 8t cargo for a very effective 4 uses of shield cells.

cycle hostiles when you get interdicted if its a python or anaconda your response should be to submit, immediately 4 pips engines 2 pips shields and chain boost - you'll be out of there in no time, you can fight or run from anything else at your leisure really. If you get an invisible target you can just assume its a python or conda and change tactic if it turns out it isn't.

Using turrets is deliberately lowering your damage input, using the down thruster reverse tactic you can still use fixed or gimballed effectively, remember also to not use 5x energy weapons, you can fire projectile weapons forever with a python distributor even on 2 pips weapons, and you hardly need to worry about ammunition.

Realistically in a python/clipper/conda you shouldn't lose shields to any target as you should destroy anything small in short order, and flee quickly from anything large enough. (pve only)

I'll add some pvp armed trader tips if neccessary

 

[Yokai]

If were talking NPC interdictions you are correct they generally just appear, or aren't on the radar at all they are usually inferior to players at the minigame though, their difficulty is currently tied to your combat rank and some of the pythons/condas i get interdicting me I would have a huge issue with flying a T9 so thats a fair point.

I'm glad you chose the python as the trader with teeth as i'm most familiar with that - a few considerations.

make sure you run 4 pips shields, extra important with a smaller shield, you can also drop a measly 8t cargo for a very effective 4 uses of shield cells.

cycle hostiles when you get interdicted if its a python or anaconda your response should be to submit, immediately 4 pips engines 2 pips shields and chain boost - you'll be out of there in no time, you can fight or run from anything else at your leisure really. If you get an invisible target you can just assume its a python or conda and change tactic if it turns out it isn't.

Using turrets is deliberately lowering your damage input, using the down thruster reverse tactic you can still use fixed or gimballed effectively, remember also to not use 5x energy weapons, you can fire projectile weapons forever with a python distributor even on 2 pips weapons, and you hardly need to worry about ammunition.

Realistically in a python/clipper/conda you shouldn't lose shields to any target as you should destroy anything small in short order, and flee quickly from anything large enough. (pve only)

I'll add some pvp armed trader tips if neccessary

Fair points and tactics. Two things, though:

* Your advice vs python/anaconda is sound today, and is an effective tactic. My primary concern is how this changes in the near future, if Sandro proceeds with his stated design intentions for changing interdiction mechanics. (Which will effectively lock you in the cage with that Python/Anaconda much longer than happens now.)

* I know turrets is lower damage output on my end. The problem IMO with using combat "dogfighter" mechanics as a heavy trader is that relying primarily on gimbals/fixed puts YOU, the heavy trader, in the sights of the pirate for longer periods of time. Which means your shields will get blown off that much faster. Which means you'll take certain hull/component damage. Which means you'll pay a much higher total cost outlay to recoup even if you win or live long enough for your FSD to come online again. My exploratory tactics revolve around being forced into combat and being unable to flee for a long period of time, so what's the best way to _minimize my hull damage_ while I wait for a chance to get away if the fight is unbalanced against me.

 

[Derath]

Fair points and tactics. Two things, though:

* Your advice vs python/anaconda is sound today, and is an effective tactic. My primary concern is how this changes in the near future, if Sandro proceeds with his stated design intentions for changing interdiction mechanics. (Which will effectively lock you in the cage with that Python/Anaconda much longer than happens now.)

* I know turrets is lower damage output on my end. The problem IMO with using combat "dogfighter" mechanics as a heavy trader is that relying primarily on gimbals/fixed puts YOU, the heavy trader, in the sights of the pirate for longer periods of time. Which means your shields will get blown off that much faster. Which means you'll take certain hull/component damage. Which means you'll pay a much higher total cost outlay to recoup even if you win or live long enough for your FSD to come online again. My exploratory tactics revolve around being forced into combat and being unable to flee for a long period of time, so what's the best way to _minimize my hull damage_ while I wait for a chance to get away if the fight is unbalanced against me.

NPC's can't keep up in a straight line with the same ship, they could make interdiction times 3 minutes and you'd still get away, if they start having clippers interdict people i'll agree its a problem but until then your safe from NPC's.

As to the turrets the only advantage they have is the ability to shoot while your pulling maneuvers to stay in large ships blind spots, and their uptime on smaller ships circling you. However if you are reversing holding down thrust you will almost always have the enemy in your sights just out of range anyway, in which case you may as well be using fixed weaponry as the range is better and the damage is as well. So in a way i'd view it as turrets > small npcs, fixed/gimbals > big npcs.

Edit: I mean really you can't currently get an NPC interdiction thats unfavourable, I do rather hope they add some but the only way to keep up with 4 pips engines in the same ship is 4 pips engines, this means at maximum 2 points weapons which really isn't much firing time and at 2k range you just don't do the damage.

 

[Roycie]

Interesting read.
I dropped my Python for a T9 (purely to experience an anaconda) just before 1.1. While i was in the Python, i didn't even consider turrets, but preferred gimbals over fixed, despite the lower damage, since i could have more time with the trigger down - hence more damage overall. And deselecting target during chaff meant i always had options.

The most relevant point i read from above is Derath pointing out that pirates go for A class modules to help them kill. Traders rarely help themselves, dropping a shield size for cargo space, or not taking any weapons for better jump range. Or indeed maxing units such as thrusters.

I recently added some expensive beam turrets to my T9 and if i get interdicted by cobra or smaller, they generally get their faces melted before i lose 1 shield ring (sometimes before i've seen it on the screen!).


The problem i have, which i keep harping on about, is cost of death. IMO, a 3 hour cost of death is a little bit too much.

 

[drwoo]

As many of stated in the "other" thread.....

The game is a system of prey and predator, that's pretty obvious.

When you CHOOSE to play a trader, and make 1mc in 2 hours, you also take the risk of being the prey for the pirate or just some murderous ******* that is killing just because he can. (yes, it has been stated that murdering just for the sake of murdering is a way to play the game). Just as playing a BH the prey is those that are wanted. Whether or not you want to believe there is a food chain, to put it simply there is. Trader ships are not going to be balanced for combat, just as combat ships aren't going to be balanced for trading, otherwise you would have 1 ship and just play that one 1 ship the entire time.

Let me say this though, I'm all for a good spirited discussion. However, changing the game to be some carebear pve environment is not what this game was made to be. These huge wall's text to change the core of the game is really disturbing to some. Some of us (traders included) signed up to play the game, based on the ruthlessness of the game. All I'm saying here is that if you don't like the ruthlessness of the game, then you playing the wrong game. I for one, am not going to continue to post on either thread, once again, talking to a brick wall.

 

[Joe Spivey]

I would just like to add and remind everybody that it was expected from the atart that most 'interactions' would be against NPCs. PvP was never, ever meant to be a central part of the game. PvP is meant to be RARE. But that isn't what we have. And it is because we have too many players playing PvP style that the game is skewed against the PC trader, making their chances of survining an attack by a PvP armed ship much less likely than the game intended. The game intended much more in the way of attacks by NPCs and players working together against the NPC/Simulation. The game now is just degenerating into a PvP shooter.