Hypothetical Piracy Module: PvP and PvE

[Ian Doncaster]

The only problem with this is a 60m Cutter, with another 20m of cargo, being shot to hell. The trader loses 80m, and the pirate makes 2-3m in stolen cargo? What C&P can make up for that kind of loss? Then we're back to the whole OPEN vs SOLO Hotel California.

Yes. To put the numbers to it:

Assuming a 10% profit per barrel on successfully-delivered cargo:
Trader Pirated: -80M
Trader Safe: +2M

Pirate Pirates: +2M
Pirate Misses: 0M

So the profits are equal if the chance of piracy is such that 2P = 2(1-P)-80P, or the chance of successful piracy ~= 2.4%. Note that any higher than 2.4% barely benefits the pirate, but means the trader goes from struggling to get by to irrecoverable losses -- and obviously the game design can't be so precise as to get an exactly 2.4% chance!

Adding in any form of C&P only makes things economically worse in this case, because it just adds more costs into the system and everyone goes bankrupt no matter what they do. (Or it wipes out the pirates entirely, which isn't the point of the game design)

Kill-to-rob worked well in the single-player Elite games but Frontier were absolutely right to move away from that for multiplayer.

 

[CMDR_Havok]

Good ideas, discussed endlessly in other threads, FD won't implement disabling weapons for pirates, I don't know why.

 

[CMDR_Havok]

Just spitballing an idea here, so feel free to shoot it down

Imagine a new module, the effect of which is to both immobilize the target and also protect it from damage - a kind of stasis field, if you will. The stasis field is keyed to the mass of the ship and the only way to disable it is to reduce the ship's mass - ie. to drop cargo.
Once the ship's mass has dropped sufficiently it is no longer immobilized, but retains the invulnerability for (say) 15 seconds - this gives the target time to escape without being destroyed. There should probably be an additional 60s immunity to prevent chain interdictions.

Higher grade/class modules require more cargo to be dropped to be disabled, but obviously ejecting all cargo would have to disable it too.
The pirate would also have the ability to drop the stasis at any time, but the invulnerability remains.

It should also be possible to resist the effect, but maybe at the cost of shields, or increased FSD charge time.

Finally, if the player under stasis logs out, then cargo is automatically dropped, starting with the highest value items - that way there's actually an incentive to stay logged in.

It's a bit more 'magic' than I would like, but maybe somebody can theorycraft some tech for it.

I THINK I've covered the possible exploits and griefing mechanisms, but I'm confident the Forum can provide some that I've not considered.

All feedback welcome.

I would have thought that something like the Star Wars (tm) Ion Cannon would work fine, simply disable the Tradeship and steal its cargo, the incentives for a pirate NOT to destroy the tradeship are that (A) the trader will go elsewhere in future, (B) a much more significant C&P penalty, also the Ion Cannon would be a big heavy weapon, leaving the pirate with only small destructive weapons, being as tradeships are large with lots of shields then it would take the pirate a while to actually destroy it, during which time the cops arrive.....

 

[Han_Zen]

The only problem with this is a 60m Cutter, with another 20m of cargo, being shot to hell. The trader loses 80m, and the pirate makes 2-3m in stolen cargo? What C&P can make up for that kind of loss? Then we're back to the whole OPEN vs SOLO Hotel California.

It just feels a bit too... Eve online, for me

That trade Cutter would have equal oportunity as the Pirate to tank. Both will have to consider how much cargo space they are willing to give up to have enough defence.

The Pirate that wants to rob Cutters, must probably go for a Cutter to.

As for C&P, the response from security should be quick and adequate in high sec. systems. In anarchy you are on your own.