Fix Piracy by making Commodity Trading more risky by increasing purchase prices.

[Screemonster]

I love how a suggestion to make a PvE game loop (piracy) actually worth engaging in has turned into yet another pvp-versus-pve hotel california thread. And it was literally from the first reply saying "pvp bad" despite the OP not mentioning pvp at all.

This is why we can't have nice things.

 

[DemiserofD]

Interesting that one can still escape NPC combat in ships not engineered for combat then, isn't it.

.... and players interested in combat are likely to engage in engineering their ships for combat.

Also noting that Engineering was introduced six years ago - less than eighteen months after the game launched.

At what point have I proposed to making it impossible for players to escape in an unengineered ship? I never said that! That said, the time frame is irrelevant, what matters is that the change took place.

There is no precedent for effectively evicting players permanently from their existing home systems due to a permanent change.

If a game has to have done something before it can ever do it in the first place, then no change is ever possible, so that's a pretty silly critique.

The fact of the matter is, precedent for temporary eviction has existed for many years, president for substantial change to gameplay has existed since the creation of the game, after this change all players would have plenty of room to play in, and the content of the game is a whole would be substantially increased.

At that point, the only reason against it is simple dislike of change, which I believe can be safely disregarded.

 

[Ettanin]

The enjoyment of playing in Open is the reward for playing in Open.

Why the strongarming then?

 

[Robert Maynard]

At what point have I proposed to making it impossible for players to escape in an unengineered ship? I never said that! That said, the time frame is irrelevant, what matters is that the change took place.

Not impossible - however:

If you are looking for an example of a broader change to combat difficulty, one need look no further than the addition of engineering. That addition profoundly changed the difficulty of combat across the entire game. They clearly have no issue with broadly changing the difficulty of the game.

... seemed to try to suggest that the game

If a game has to have done something before it can ever do it in the first place, then no change is ever possible, so that's a pretty silly critique.

It's an observation that what is proposed here has not happened before - and likely for good reason.

The fact of the matter is, precedent for temporary eviction has existed for many years, president for substantial change to gameplay has existed since the creation of the game, after this change all players would have plenty of room to play in, and the content of the game is a whole would be substantially increased.

Indeed - all the while not increasing the non-optional challenge posed by the game.

At that point, the only reason against it is simple dislike of change, which I believe can be safely disregarded.

Just as proposals that seek change and disregard, or downplay the effects on, those adversely affected by the proposal can be equally quickly disregarded.

 

[Robert Maynard]

I love how a suggestion to make a PvE game loop (piracy) actually worth engaging in has turned into yet another pvp-versus-pve hotel california thread. And it was literally from the first reply saying "pvp bad" despite the OP not mentioning pvp at all.

This is why we can't have nice things.

Depends which side of piracy is being considered - the proposal seeks to make trading more financially risky "just because".

 

[DemiserofD]

Not impossible - however:

... seemed to try to suggest that the game

It's an observation that what is proposed here has not happened before - and likely for good reason.

Indeed - all the while not increasing the non-optional challenge posed by the game.

Just as proposals that seek change and disregard, or downplay the effects on, those adversely affected by the proposal can be equally quickly disregarded.

Once again, I have absolutely no intent in taking away the easier aspects of the game. Only adding new additional content. You're only real critique against this happening is the fact that some players may need to leave if their system no longer matches their difficulty preferences, but again, that has happened to multiple times throughout the course of the game, so is no meaningful critique.

 

[Screemonster]

Depends which side of piracy is being considered - the proposal seeks to make trading more financially risky "just because".

There is nothing PvP about suggesting that NPC traders should actually be carrying something worth stealing.

 

[DemiserofD]

Why the strongarming then?

Again, I don't see this as strong arming at all. Just new content being added.

 

[Robert Maynard]

There is nothing PvP about suggesting that NPC traders should actually be carrying something worth stealing.

Changes to trading affect players too - and would make PvP piracy more lucrative, seemingly in the hope that some attackers might actually engage in piracy rather than ganking.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Once again, I have absolutely no intent in taking away the easier aspects of the game.

.... apart from changing the NPC challenge posed by thousands of existing systems.

Only adding new additional content.

What "new additional content" - the proposal seems to relate be tweaking commodity prices and changing the challenge posed by NPCs in some systems.

You're only real critique against this happening is the fact that some players may need to leave if their system no longer matches their difficulty preferences, but again, that has happened to multiple times throughout the course of the game, so is no meaningful critique.

On a temporary basis only - not permanently - that's a fundamental difference.

 

[Ettanin]

A good idea doesn't marginalize other players or their playstyles.

Giving NPCs unique wares to make NPC piracy viable doesn't marginalize other players (traders) as the parameters of these otherwise unobtainable wares can be balanced to make profitability roughly equal.

Raising the difficulty two-fold (stronger/more lethal NPCs AND increased requirements for seed money) does marginalize non-combat players, especially traders.

 

[Ian Doncaster]

There is no precedent for effectively evicting players permanently from their existing home systems due to a permanent change

Discounting a couple of cases where a megaship showed up somewhere for a one-week CG and then left again...

HIP 22460 used to have two dockable megaships offering a range of services - and did so for a period of quite a few months - and now they're gone: destroyed completely, even, rather than just moved on.
Going way back, Gliese 1269 was a usable home system for well over a year ... and then Jaques jumped away, permanently removing all trade and PvE combat opportunities from the system.

2.1 added huge numbers of permit locks (most notably Col 70) locking people out of numerous systems that they'd previously been able to explore freely

It doesn't happen often - but it does happen. And since Frontier have stated a desire to do the unprecedented with the current storyline (and then repeatedly done so over the last six months) ... I wouldn't even assume "never before" meant "and that's a policy so they won't in future" rather than just "not yet"


However: what you're talking about is "the difficulty of doing X in a system changes" rather than "X becomes completely impossible" which is a much wider definition and accordingly has many more precedents: lots of changes to the mission and trade systems over the years have turned systems from obscure backwaters to major player hubs and back again. Sure, you can still mine LTDs in Borann if you want ... but the hotspots repositioning means you're not actually benefiting from doing so. Quince was once popular for its mission stacking, now it's not and traffic is way down.

(And yes, to note your points upthread: when they nerfed Borann, a lot of people did ragequit, or at least posted threads saying they were. They expected that and did it anyway. Difficulty increases - even hyper-localised ones - are often unpopular, but it's never stopped Frontier at least considering them.)

 

[Screemonster]

Changes to trading affect players too - and would make PvP piracy more lucrative, seemingly in the hope that some attackers might actually engage in piracy rather than ganking.

The only thing that would do that is providing some means of ensuring people don't just log out while the pirate is demanding goods, or for the victim to be sure they won't be just blown out of the sky if they don't boost the instant they drop, both of which are pretty much lost causes. Outside of the RP aspect, PvP piracy is dead and cannot be revived. PvE piracy can be saved and it's largely as simple as making it actually worth your time to empty a miner's hold.

For example: I take my corvette to a haz-res. There are pirates present, there are NPC miners present. Unless the miner is an incredibly rare T9 laden with low-temperature diamonds, I'll get more money just blowing the pirates out of the sky - and outfitting for bounty hunting requires a way less specific loadout than outfitting for piracy.

 

[Robert Maynard]

The only thing that would do that is providing some means of ensuring people don't just log out while the pirate is demanding goods, or for the victim to be sure they won't be just blown out of the sky if they don't boost the instant they drop, both of which are pretty much lost causes. Outside of the RP aspect, PvP piracy is dead and cannot be revived.

From the perspective of the targeted CMDR there's no difference between a pirate and a ganker until after the event, assuming the CMDR was not destroyed.

PvE piracy can be saved and it's largely as simple as making it actually worth your time to empty a miner's hold.

Indeed - and that doesn't need to change trading for players.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Thanks for the detailed review.

Discounting a couple of cases where a megaship showed up somewhere for a one-week CG and then left again...

HIP 22460 used to have two dockable megaships offering a range of services - and did so for a period of quite a few months - and now they're gone: destroyed completely, even, rather than just moved on.

Understandable that a pair of megaships were placed temporarily as part of the ongoing narrative.

Going way back, Gliese 1269 was a usable home system for well over a year ... and then Jaques jumped away, permanently removing all trade and PvE combat opportunities from the system.

Which is another, arguably narrative driven, temporary placement - ultimately leading to the inception of Colonia.

2.1 added huge numbers of permit locks (most notably Col 70) locking people out of numerous systems that they'd previously been able to explore freely

Indeed - although no-one could call those systems "home" with no docks.

It doesn't happen often - but it does happen. And since Frontier have stated a desire to do the unprecedented with the current storyline (and then repeatedly done so over the last six months) ... I wouldn't even assume "never before" meant "and that's a policy so they won't in future" rather than just "not yet"

Which forms the basis of my point - when it does happen it's most often temporary and does not affect many systems simultaneously.

However: what you're talking about is "the difficulty of doing X in a system changes" rather than "X becomes completely impossible" which is a much wider definition and accordingly has many more precedents: lots of changes to the mission and trade systems over the years have turned systems from obscure backwaters to major player hubs and back again. Sure, you can still mine LTDs in Borann if you want ... but the hotspots repositioning means you're not actually benefiting from doing so. Quince was once popular for its mission stacking, now it's not and traffic is way down.

Those changes don't seem to be affecting the challenge posed by the game much, if at all - as nerfing Borann meant that Cr/hr dropped, not that mining became more difficult.

(And yes, to note your points upthread: when they nerfed Borann, a lot of people did ragequit, or at least posted threads saying they were. They expected that and did it anyway. Difficulty increases - even hyper-localised ones - are often unpopular, but it's never stopped Frontier at least considering them.)

Considering is one thing - applying is another - and, as noted, they don't seem to be applied that often.

 

[Ian Doncaster]

Understandable that a pair of megaships were placed temporarily as part of the ongoing narrative.
Which is another, arguably narrative driven, temporary placement - ultimately leading to the inception of Colonia.

Sure. But then if the tinfoilers are right and the Thargoid anomalies are superweapons directed to blow up Sol, turning it into another HIP 22460, that would also be a narrative-driven thing, and the previous human presence in that system would therefore (retrospectively) have been a temporary placement. At least in the Jaques case - obviously the HIP 22460 case was leading to something bad happening - there wasn't really a way to predict that the system would become empty again, and the specific timing of it was more due to the Fuel Rats suggestion than anything Frontier-initiated, so hardly predictable from previous foreshadowing either.

Indeed - although no-one could call those systems "home" with no docks.

You've met explorers, right?
(More seriously, dig out the "Planet Wilson" thread)

Those changes don't seem to be affecting the challenge posed by the game much, if at all - as nerfing Borann meant that Cr/hr dropped, not that mining became more difficult.

A trader having their ship blown up absolutely reliably on every odd station departure, and getting through on the evens, provided that the successful half pays well enough to make a profit overall, is effectively just facing a Cr/hr drop as well.

Sure, psychologically there's a big difference between "your profit per trip is an ultra-reliable 1000cr" and "your profit per trip is 1 million credits half the time and -998000 credits the other half" (so long as it's exactly half) and some people will prefer the reliability and others will prefer the gamble, but in practice it's all just Cr/hr in the end.

But ... cases where there's been a notable and permanent increase in combat difficulty, then:
- the transition from 2.0 to 2.1 ... sure, a lot of the very early increase was just outfitting bugs which were resolved by 2.1.02, but even after that fixing the 2.0 bug which meant NPCs had a very good chance of stopping and spinning in space if you kept continuous multicannon/beam fire on them made combat quite a bit tougher on its own
- the introduction of the Federal bricks in 1.3 was a noticeable increase in difficulty over 1.2 because there was finally a ship which the NPC AI could make vaguely reasonable use of. My first PvE rebuy came from massively underestimating them.
- mission pirate/assassin wrinkles, and the similarly equipped and rank-matched "tasty cargo" pirates, were not an original part of the game. The starting risk to traders and mission runners was purely the "ambient" pirates who were and are generally very weak.
- CZs are much harder now than they used to be (even the low-intensity ones are a bit tougher)

.................... wait a moment, I almost forgot the really obvious one!
- ATR substantially increases the combat difficulty experienced by anyone doing certain criminal activities, in pretty much every inhabited system in the game, to great if temporary rejoicing on the forums.

 

[Robert Maynard]

You've met explorers, right?
(More seriously, dig out the "Planet Wilson" thread)

I'll do that.

A trader having their ship blown up absolutely reliably on every odd station departure, and getting through on the evens, provided that the successful half pays well enough to make a profit overall, is effectively just facing a Cr/hr drop as well.

Sure, psychologically there's a big difference between "your profit per trip is an ultra-reliable 1000cr" and "your profit per trip is 1 million credits half the time and -998000 credits the other half" (so long as it's exactly half) and some people will prefer the reliability and others will prefer the gamble, but in practice it's all just Cr/hr in the end.

There's a significant difference between "making credits more slowly than before" and "being destroyed half the time, significantly more often than before".

Not all players enjoy combat - and have no need to, given three from five in-game Elite ranks don't require the player to fire a shot in combat - and Frontier don't seem to force players to engage in it either.

But ... cases where there's been a notable and permanent increase in combat difficulty, then:
- the transition from 2.0 to 2.1 ... sure, a lot of the very early increase was just outfitting bugs which were resolved by 2.1.02, but even after that fixing the 2.0 bug which meant NPCs had a very good chance of stopping and spinning in space if you kept continuous multicannon/beam fire on them made combat quite a bit tougher on its own

The speed with which the bugged weapons (and, from memory some or all of the increase to AI challenge) were fixed (much to the chagrin of those who seemed to be enjoying both the new AI and the adverse effect it was having on a not insignificant number of players) suggested to me that Frontier saw what happened to play-time stats and didn't like what they saw.

- the introduction of the Federal bricks in 1.3 was a noticeable increase in difficulty over 1.2 because there was finally a ship which the NPC AI could make vaguely reasonable use of. My first PvE rebuy came from massively underestimating them.
- mission pirate/assassin wrinkles, and the similarly equipped and rank-matched "tasty cargo" pirates, were not an original part of the game. The starting risk to traders and mission runners was purely the "ambient" pirates who were and are generally very weak.
- CZs are much harder now than they used to be (even the low-intensity ones are a bit tougher)

As missions and CZs are opt-in challenge increases to those don't affect the non-opt-in challenge posed by the game.

.................... wait a moment, I almost forgot the really obvious one!
- ATR substantially increases the combat difficulty experienced by anyone doing certain criminal activities, in pretty much every inhabited system in the game, to great if temporary rejoicing on the forums.

Of course - a combat response for illegal combat activities. Presumably those affected by them are ready for combat in a ship that has been outfitted with combat in mind (even if it is not fully optimised for combat).

 

[DemiserofD]

I'll do that.

There's a significant difference between "making credits more slowly than before" and "being destroyed half the time, significantly more often than before".

Not all players enjoy combat - and have no need to, given three from five in-game Elite ranks don't require the player to fire a shot in combat - and Frontier don't seem to force players to engage in it either.

The speed with which the bugged weapons (and, from memory some or all of the increase to AI challenge) were fixed (much to the chagrin of those who seemed to be enjoying both the new AI and the adverse effect it was having on a not insignificant number of players) suggested to me that Frontier saw what happened to play-time stats and didn't like what they saw.

As missions and CZs are opt-in challenge increases to those don't affect the non-opt-in challenge posed by the game.

Of course - a combat response for illegal combat activities. Presumably those affected by them are ready for combat in a ship that has been outfitted with combat in mind (even if it is not fully optimised for combat).

Your qualifications are becoming increasingly arbitrary. Like I said earlier, not every change must be predated by an identical change. That's impossible.

You have a tendency to rely on this circular logic. If fdev haven't done something yet, then in your mind, they should not do it, unless they do do it, in which case it is retroactively acceptable.

So... why should anyone care about your opinion?

 

[Robert Maynard]

Your qualifications are becoming increasingly arbitrary. Like I said earlier, not every change must be predated by an identical change. That's impossible.

Of course not all changes must follow from an identical change - as to do so would mean that nothing could be done for the first time.

You have a tendency to rely on this circular logic. If fdev haven't done something yet, then in your mind, they should not do it, unless they do do it, in which case it is retroactively acceptable.

Frontier are free to do with their game what they wish - it's their game after all. It seems clear to me though that they consider the consequences of change on the player-base as a whole when doing so and don't disregard significant portions when doing so, something that some of those who propose significant change do on a regular basis.

So... why should anyone care about your opinion?

No more reason to than anyone else's.

 

[DemiserofD]

Of course not all changes must follow from an identical change - as to do so would mean that nothing could be done for the first time.

Frontier are free to do with their game what they wish - it's their game after all. It seems clear to me though that they consider the consequences of change on the player-base as a whole when doing so and don't disregard significant portions when doing so, something that some of those who propose significant change do on a regular basis.

No more reason to than anyone else's.

Well then, I guess the only real question is whether or not this change would benefit more players than it hurts.

Having answered your critiques to my satisfaction, the answer seems clear, and precedent clearly exists, so lets go fdev!