Interdiction Disruptor - new defensive module idea

[Ian Doncaster]

@Ian Doncaster you seem to be interpreting this in terms of PVE only.
Where it is really with PVP (or ganking even to be precise) in mind.

I think I'm interpreting it as primarily in PvE terms because that's 99.9% of all interdictions and if the problem is specifically PvP there are much more effective ways to avoid that already.

Happy for the new module to only work on interdictions initiated by Cmdrs

I don't see an extra module as being particularly likely to be useful for balancing PvP encounters
- if you want to avoid CMDR interdictions succeeding, that's easy to do already and far more reliably by not being in supercruise with hostile CMDRs in the first place
- in the vast majority of systems the module is taking up space and not doing anything at all useful ... which means, like a shield generator or some HRPs or flying a defensible multirole rather than a deathtrap freighter ... it's just making you less "efficient" without giving you any benefit towards your PvE goals. Which means like the other "don't die instantly to a gank" outfitting options already available, the people who die will be the people who didn't fit it.
- if you're expecting PvP trouble and willing to reoutfit for that one case, you can be flying something they can't kill anyway, so whether the interdiction fails or it succeeds but you submit and high-wake is largely irrelevant to your survival (and this is the case where an accomplice docked at the station with wing nav lock combined with hitting the SCO button the moment you enter the system can make you virtually impossible to intercept for no module cost at all)
- if you have it fitted and it doesn't work [1] you could have used that module slot for an extra HRP/MRP/bigger shield generator/etc.

[1] Given that 4A Interdictor vs 4A Resistor you have as being "a fair fight", the attacker is nevertheless going to have had way more practice at the minigame so should win most mechanically fair fights on the basis of personal skill, and fitting a 4A Interdictor rather than a 1A only marginally compromises defensive capabilities on most PvP builds - in a way that's completely irrelevant when attacking targets which aren't going to be firing back in the first place - I wouldn't expect even fitting a 4A Resistor to actually let you beat a PvP interdiction very often.

My multirole PvE Krait (size 3 interdictor since the Detailed Surface Scanner and SRV bay were taking up the smaller slots anyway) wouldn't last much longer than "long enough to high-wake with impunity" versus an actual PvP ship and there's no point in me bothering to fire back in that case ... but its weapons make very short work of lightly-armoured Powerplay traders and would do exactly the same to a full-cargo player ship which has no defensive modules fitted.

Alternatively, happy for Cmdr interdictions be nerfed, so they are as easy to avoid as the NPC ones.

This gets back to "why not just ask for interdictors to be removed?" I think.

The question is ultimately: are CMDRs flying from A to B (with or without cargo) supposed to be attacked? If the answer is "no", then Frontier shouldn't implement mechanisms by which they can be attacked. They removed NPC attacks on the "without cargo" case way back in 2.1.05ish and they could remove the other cases too. If the answer is "yes" then Frontier need to accept that they have failed to make that game, can't now adapt Elite Dangerous to be that game without remaking and rebalancing half the content and features in ways which are definitely not compatible with current expectations, and decide that the answer is really "no" after all.

 

[rootsrat]

I think I'm interpreting it as primarily in PvE terms because that's 99.9% of all interdictions

Maybe in your case, quite the opposite in mine.

and if the problem is specifically PvP there are much more effective ways to avoid that already.

Go to a trading CG system in Open and say that to me again

I don't see an extra module as being particularly likely to be useful for balancing PvP encounters
- if you want to avoid CMDR interdictions succeeding, that's easy to do already and far more reliably by not being in supercruise with hostile CMDRs in the first place

See above comment about CG in Open.
If you're talking about blocking or changing a mode, then I would rather have an in-game tool for that.

- in the vast majority of systems the module is taking up space and not doing anything at all useful ... which means, like a shield generator or some HRPs or flying a defensible multirole rather than a deathtrap freighter ... it's just making you less "efficient" without giving you any benefit towards your PvE goals. Which means like the other "don't die instantly to a gank" outfitting options already available, the people who die will be the people who didn't fit it.

But that's up to a player. I could say that about half the modules.

Flying an AX ship in open? Most of your modules are useless.
Mining ship? The same.
Etc.

Shall we just remove these modules from the game, because they are only taking up space and are only useful in a single scenario?

- if you're expecting PvP trouble and willing to reoutfit for that one case, you can be flying something they can't kill anyway, so whether the interdiction fails or it succeeds but you submit and high-wake is largely irrelevant to your survival (and this is the case where an accomplice docked at the station with wing nav lock combined with hitting the SCO button the moment you enter the system can make you virtually impossible to intercept for no module cost at all)
- if you have it fitted and it doesn't work [1] you could have used that module slot for an extra HRP/MRP/bigger shield generator/etc.

Yeah, say that to my fully engineered, armoured T9 with the biggest shield generator that is being either decimated by a wing of gankboats after a 5 chain interdictions. High waking is of no use, as my goal is to get to the station in CG system.

[1] Given that 4A Interdictor vs 4A Resistor you have as being "a fair fight", the attacker is nevertheless going to have had way more practice at the minigame

Why are you assuming that? Or did you do some research If not, I can just say the opposite and it will be your assumption against mine.

My multirole PvE Krait (size 3 interdictor since the Detailed Surface Scanner and SRV bay were taking up the smaller slots anyway) wouldn't last much longer than "long enough to high-wake with impunity" versus an actual PvP ship and there's no point in me bothering to fire back in that case ... but its weapons make very short work of lightly-armoured Powerplay traders and would do exactly the same to a full-cargo player ship which has no defensive modules fitted.

Great, so if I had my size 4 Disruptor fitted, I'd had a slightly better chance of evading your interdiction. Good for me! Bad for you for not fitting a bigger Interdictor. Sounds like a mistake on your part in that scenario.

This gets back to "why not just ask for interdictors to be removed?" I think.

The question is ultimately: are CMDRs flying from A to B (with or without cargo) supposed to be attacked? If the answer is "no", then Frontier shouldn't implement mechanisms by which they can be attacked. They removed NPC attacks on the "without cargo" case way back in 2.1.05ish and they could remove the other cases too. If the answer is "yes" then Frontier need to accept that they have failed to make that game, can't now adapt Elite Dangerous to be that game without remaking and rebalancing half the content and features in ways which are definitely not compatible with current expectations, and decide that the answer is really "no" after all.

All that still does not mean there isn't some room for improvement Hence my proposal.

"Improvement" being my subjective opinion. As long as FDEV sees it and considers or rejects, I'm happy.

 

[Ian Doncaster]

Shall we just remove these modules from the game, because they are only taking up space and are only useful in a single scenario?

But those scenarios are opt-in because they're based around going to particular POIs. People do go to do mining and realise they've forgotten their limpets, of course (or, in my case once, remember the limpets but forget the controller), but the game isn't set up for random asteroids to suddenly drop in your path and have you have to mine them to proceed, so it's pretty generally accepted that if you try to go mining in the wrong ship it's your fault that it doesn't work out properly.

That's the difference with supercruise interdictions - unlike essentially everything else in the game, they can take a situation where you thought you were doing X and make it turn out that you actually need to do Y [1], and then your hyper-specific outfitting [2] turns out to be wrong.

Every other case that could happen in
- Thargoid Scythes pulling passenger transports outside the AX-designated systems
- "Threat 0" signal sources turning out to be an ambush
- the various random attacks on explorers in the very early days
- some of the more unusual mission twists
- Powerplay NPC aggression in "Hostile" territory
has been removed (often very quickly) by Frontier

And yet interdiction hangs around (presumably out of some sense that "pirates attack traders" is a necessary component, at least in a theoretical sense, for an Elite game to have ... but Elite Dangerous has systematically removed all the foundations around that component, so it doesn't matter any more).


[1] "Hauling cargo" could have intrinsically included "by fighting off the pirates" as it did in previous games. But once the expectation was set that it didn't, and once Frontier started reinforcing that very early by introducing ships which would have been effectively NPC-only like the Lakon T-series in previous games, it couldn't be added later.

[2] One of the reasons, I think, that "trade means defeating the pirates on the way" worked far better in Elite/FE2/FFE than it would if imposed on Elite Dangerous is that ships in those games (and also in NMS or the X series which have similar "you might get attacked" mechanisms) is that ships in those games were/are automatically much more multirole. ED ships end up ultra-specialised compared with the ones in those games to the extent it's a surprise when something is provided as a built-in like the FSS.

Which means that out-of-expectation events hit way harder in ED (where they're at best "well, that could have been interesting if I'd been in a completely different ship") than they do in those other games.

 

[rootsrat]

But those scenarios are opt-in because they're based around going to particular POIs. People do go to do mining and realise they've forgotten their limpets, of course (or, in my case once, remember the limpets but forget the controller), but the game isn't set up for random asteroids to suddenly drop in your path and have you have to mine them to proceed, so it's pretty generally accepted that if you try to go mining in the wrong ship it's your fault that it doesn't work out properly.

That's the difference with supercruise interdictions - unlike essentially everything else in the game, they can take a situation where you thought you were doing X and make it turn out that you actually need to do Y [1], and then your hyper-specific outfitting [2] turns out to be wrong.

Every other case that could happen in
- Thargoid Scythes pulling passenger transports outside the AX-designated systems
- "Threat 0" signal sources turning out to be an ambush
- the various random attacks on explorers in the very early days
- some of the more unusual mission twists
- Powerplay NPC aggression in "Hostile" territory
has been removed (often very quickly) by Frontier

And yet interdiction hangs around (presumably out of some sense that "pirates attack traders" is a necessary component, at least in a theoretical sense, for an Elite game to have ... but Elite Dangerous has systematically removed all the foundations around that component, so it doesn't matter any more).


[1] "Hauling cargo" could have intrinsically included "by fighting off the pirates" as it did in previous games. But once the expectation was set that it didn't, and once Frontier started reinforcing that very early by introducing ships which would have been effectively NPC-only like the Lakon T-series in previous games, it couldn't be added later.

[2] One of the reasons, I think, that "trade means defeating the pirates on the way" worked far better in Elite/FE2/FFE than it would if imposed on Elite Dangerous is that ships in those games (and also in NMS or the X series which have similar "you might get attacked" mechanisms) is that ships in those games were/are automatically much more multirole. ED ships end up ultra-specialised compared with the ones in those games to the extent it's a surprise when something is provided as a built-in like the FSS.

Which means that out-of-expectation events hit way harder in ED (where they're at best "well, that could have been interesting if I'd been in a completely different ship") than they do in those other games.

I admit your point got lost on me. Are you trying to say my proposed module is not needed because the interdictions are a sandbox emergent event, rather than based on a dedicated POI?

 

[angusmadmac1]

I like the idea of a hard point or points for defensive capabilities, generally it's all about offensive yes I know you have mines but even then you have to be careful . Or even utilities slots especially for traders Fdev seem to have missed the the boat for traders defence. The defence capabilities should be higher in traders and less so for combat . But that may be down to trying to multirole ships.

 

[Ian Doncaster]

I admit your point got lost on me. Are you trying to say my proposed module is not needed because the interdictions are a sandbox emergent event, rather than based on a dedicated POI?

I think I'm probably saying that interdictions are an emergent event in a game with an outfitting and capabilities model defined around advance preparation, and therefore in many respects just a bad fit for the rest of the concept, so a solution to them which is built around "bringing a particular module" only I think works in the very narrow context (like a trade CG in Open) where they're no longer an emergent event but a predictable property of the location.

But if "PvP blockade running gameplay location" is the desirable thing, I think that's probably better handled in realspace than supercruise anyway - better flight model, more options for participants on both sides, stealth, speed, just coming in from an unexpected angle, etc. - so remove interdictions, but expand the drop distance for stations to 20-30km.

That seems to sort out the various problems with chain interdictions - you either win (reach the station) or lose (forced to retreat or destroyed) and there's not really a "go round again indefinitely" outcome; there's a fairly finite distance to cover; system security levels can place station defence platforms further out from the station so you need to run less far to get into their coverage; the odds are fairly defender-favourable as the defender only needs to be concerned with a narrow cylinder but the attacker needs to cover the entire sphere (tuning the drop distance needed to make this fair using the pretty short-range scanners we have on offer) but give a better spectrum of defendness rather than the sharp cutoff of "can't high-wake in time" and "can high-wake in time".

(It'd also probably work better for PvE pirate attacks, too)

 

[Uthael]

Here's an idea: Make the Interdictor module completely fair. Both parties should wobble at the identical rate (literally copied). The one more capable of centering their aim wins.

With this, no defensive module should exist.

Also, no more module grades for interdiction strength. 1A and 4A are the same. Maybe different range and angle. Variants A, B, C, D and E should still exist, but differ only in mass, integrity, range, angle, power draw and boot time.

 

[rootsrat]

I think I'm probably saying that interdictions are an emergent event in a game with an outfitting and capabilities model defined around advance preparation, and therefore in many respects just a bad fit for the rest of the concept, so a solution to them which is built around "bringing a particular module" only I think works in the very narrow context (like a trade CG in Open) where they're no longer an emergent event but a predictable property of the location.

But isn't this essentially the same as "bringing a particular module to a mining situation"? You go mining - you take equipment that helps you with that. You don't need Prospector to mine, right? You can just mine random stuff. But it definitely helps!

You don't need Caustic Sinks for AX, but they definitely help!

You don't need Interdiction Disruptor for a trading CG in Open, but it would definitely help Just another specialised module, aimed at Open CG haulers.

But if "PvP blockade running gameplay location" is the desirable thing, I think that's probably better handled in realspace than supercruise anyway - better flight model, more options for participants on both sides, stealth, speed, just coming in from an unexpected angle, etc. - so remove interdictions, but expand the drop distance for stations to 20-30km.

That seems to sort out the various problems with chain interdictions - you either win (reach the station) or lose (forced to retreat or destroyed) and there's not really a "go round again indefinitely" outcome; there's a fairly finite distance to cover; system security levels can place station defence platforms further out from the station so you need to run less far to get into their coverage; the odds are fairly defender-favourable as the defender only needs to be concerned with a narrow cylinder but the attacker needs to cover the entire sphere (tuning the drop distance needed to make this fair using the pretty short-range scanners we have on offer) but give a better spectrum of defendness rather than the sharp cutoff of "can't high-wake in time" and "can high-wake in time".

(It'd also probably work better for PvE pirate attacks, too)

While the idea of removing FSD Interdictor isn't bad per se - realistically it is much more likely for FDEV to add a new specialised module to the game, than to remove an existing one. I would dare to say there is a 99.9% chance they would not remove an existing module from the game

Here's an idea: Make the Interdictor module completely fair. Both parties should wobble at the identical rate (literally copied). The one more capable of centering their aim wins.

With this, no defensive module should exist.

Also, no more module grades for interdiction strength. 1A and 4A are the same. Maybe different range and angle. Variants A, B, C, D and E should still exist, but differ only in mass, integrity, range, angle, power draw and boot time.

While honestly I'd be up for anything that would level the playing field, I'd definitely prefer a new module to play and experiment with

 

[Ian Doncaster]

I would dare to say there is a 99.9% chance they would not remove an existing module from the game

They did for the (three!) types of discovery scanner when they were significantly rewriting how exploration gameplay worked.

I suppose my opinion is that "PvP blockade" as a gameplay loop is sufficiently broken that if they're going to look at it they should do something on that scale with it, rather than just throw in another module and move on.

 

[Rubbernuke]

No to the idea:

1: we have SCO

2: ship choice, SC agility factor as well as other aspects that could be used instead that adds to gameplay

3: interdiction itself needs a rework and rebalance between player / NPCs and WYSIWYG (i.e. make the whole process of evasion / capture more representative)

Having such a module would essentially make SC even safer than what it already is.

 

[angusmadmac1]

No to the idea:

1: we have SCO

2: ship choice, SC agility factor as well as other aspects that could be used instead that adds to gameplay

3: interdiction itself needs a rework and rebalance between player / NPCs and WYSIWYG (i.e. make the whole process of evasion / capture more representative)

Having such a module would essentially make SC even safer than what it already is.

But Fdev have made it so that the combatant has all the advantages , cargo ship not as manoeuvrable, not as quick, ineffectual weapon hard points , lack of auxiliary points and few defensive capabilities .
Pirates have interdictor fast manoeuvrable ships high shields and big guns .
We have chaff but most play fixed
We have heat sinks but we have night vision
Point defense and ecm don't do anything against lasers and guns.
We have mines which can be easily spotted and can be a danger to the trader.
Everything stacks towards the combat build rather than to the trade build ( with shields etc)
im not looking at a magical hand wavium extra space. But say defensive hard points and utility mounts or a payload ?

 

[rootsrat]

Having such a module would essentially make SC even safer than what it already is.

Correct!

How safe it currently is, is very subjective though.

 

[Rubbernuke]

But Fdev have made it so that the combatant has all the advantages , cargo ship not as manoeuvrable, not as quick, ineffectual weapon hard points , lack of auxiliary points and few defensive capabilities .
Pirates have interdictor fast manoeuvrable ships high shields and big guns .
We have chaff but most play fixed
We have heat sinks but we have night vision
Point defense and ecm don't do anything against lasers and guns.
We have mines which can be easily spotted and can be a danger to the trader.
Everything stacks towards the combat build rather than to the trade build ( with shields etc)
im not looking at a magical hand wavium extra space. But say defensive hard points and utility mounts or a payload ?

All of those things are within your control to change- location, ship, loadout etc.

I'd much prefer that ships SC agility meant something, could be upgraded, that crew had a role (say, with detection in SC) or that traders could equip armour that allowed this. Also what about wingmen? Its funny that there is little about wings (in PG / Open) regards protection, or even maybe (one day) hiring NPC wingmen to protect you.

So, like I said, actually developing other parts of the game deliver more complexity and depth and are not (IMO) reductive to an already anemic aspect of ED.

 

[rootsrat]

All of those things are within your control to change- location, ship, loadout etc.

I'd much prefer that ships SC agility meant something, could be upgraded, that crew had a role (say, with detection in SC) or that traders could equip armour that allowed this. Also what about wingmen? Its funny that there is little about wings (in PG / Open) regards protection, or even maybe (one day) hiring NPC wingmen to protect you.

So, like I said, actually developing other parts of the game deliver more complexity and depth and are not (IMO) reductive to an already anemic aspect of ED.

I couldn't agree more! But again, when posting my suggestions, I try to look at it in a realistic way. What is more likely? FDEV doing an overhaul of pretty much a quarter of the entire game... or introducing a one new module, which would help balance things out?

 

[angusmadmac1]

All of those things are within your control to change- location, ship, loadout etc.

I'd much prefer that ships SC agility meant something, could be upgraded, that crew had a role (say, with detection in SC) or that traders could equip armour that allowed this. Also what about wingmen? Its funny that there is little about wings (in PG / Open) regards protection, or even maybe (one day) hiring NPC wingmen to protect you.

So, like I said, actually developing other parts of the game deliver more complexity and depth and are not (IMO) reductive to an already anemic aspect of ED.

Some are out with our control
Take python and python MK2 the python is beaten on everything ( basic build ) apart from range ?
I only used that for an easy like for like on coriolis so the combat ship wins ( unless you count cargo ) so what advantage is given to the trader ?
But I also realise that this has been from the begining and not likely to change but an added defensive hardpoint or pod or utility may make it enjoyable for both sides ? We had a whole load of anti thargoid defences during the "war" why would this any different.

 

[Rubbernuke]

I couldn't agree more! But again, when posting my suggestions, I try to look at it in a realistic way. What is more likely? FDEV doing an overhaul of pretty much a quarter of the entire game... or introducing a one new module, which would help balance things out?

I get what you mean, but I'm always going to suggest the long view and push that as its what would fill in a big gap.

 

[Rubbernuke]

Some are out with our control
Take python and python MK2 the python is beaten on everything ( basic build ) apart from range ?
I only used that for an easy like for like on coriolis so the combat ship wins ( unless you count cargo ) so what advantage is given to the trader ?
But I also realise that this has been from the begining and not likely to change but an added defensive hardpoint or pod or utility may make it enjoyable for both sides ? We had a whole load of anti thargoid defences during the "war" why would this any different.

The problem is people thinking they can go anywhere in anything at any time. You cant, and its up to you to choose how you mitigate things.

 

[angusmadmac1]

But when your mitigation is at a severe disadvantage ?at a Cargo CG ? Even if I max out my shields engines etc on the python I'm already at a disadvantage with the base lines and then add engineering .
Combat always holds the advantage. Me personally I build my cargo ships to at least be able to survive to jump or outrun. But my defensive capabilities limited as stated .
Chaff mitigated by fixed ,
heat syncs mitigated by night vision
ecm ? Missiles
Point defense missiles and hatchbreakers
all the mitigation is on the trader the combat pilot takes none .
Once interdicted the usual advice is to submit because you can rarely win against a commander ?
The reason I have to be in certain places is because the game has set a station or system.
The skill in the combat side is different which I won't ever knock but everything is stacked against the cargo dude or dudess .
This isn't a fix all just about maybe having a larger chance to escape ? So at a interdiction instead of it being 100% in favour of the interdictor say at max a 50 50 chance of winning ?
Anti interdictor utility slots that gives you a x amount of chance of winning or makes it harder to interdict from further away or from the side ?
It's not stopping the interdiction it's making it harder for the person who is interdicting and then more fun ? Just a suggestion

 

[rootsrat]

The problem is people thinking they can go anywhere in anything at any time. You cant, and its up to you to choose how you mitigate things.

A fully engineered T9 with the best non-PP shield and quite a bit of cargo space sacrificed for the said shield AND some additional HRP/MRP is still severely handicapped in comparison to a fully engineered gankboat, which does not need to go for ANY compromise and additionally doesn't really have to care about the absolutely laughable C&P.

And the sacrifices already mean you're at exactly 0% chance for any sort of competition if it's a trading CG situation.

The current mitigation is not enough and it's severely biased towards the aggressor in my opinion.

 

[Rubbernuke]

A fully engineered T9 with the best non-PP shield and quite a bit of cargo space sacrificed for the said shield AND some additional HRP/MRP is still severely handicapped in comparison to a fully engineered gankboat, which does not need to go for ANY compromise and additionally doesn't really have to care about the absolutely laughable C&P.

And the sacrifices already mean you're at exactly 0% chance for any sort of competition if it's a trading CG situation.

The current mitigation is not enough and it's severely biased towards the aggressor in my opinion.

If its that dangerous, then you chose a different ship. I'd ask exactly why you value profit over destruction given other, faster ships exist that are much more survivable.