Will be interesting to see how this goes with network latency, those dumb fires hit faster at close range than some of those bad 100ms+ connections that players have on peer2peer connections. Would it not be kind of annoying when your point defense only saves you when you are the host of the game? *g*
Interdiction Dodgers
- Thread starter Snakebite
- Start date
- Status
Will be interesting to see how this goes with network latency, those dumb fires hit faster at close range than some of those bad 100ms+ connections that players have on peer2peer connections. Would it not be kind of annoying when your point defense only saves you when you are the host of the game? *g*
Good question, the hope is that the pirate takes the containers I offer instead of shooting me. I also enjoy the random docking accidents.
I don't mind being pirated, but I DO mind losing my ship and 6+ hours of dedicated trading time to recover. Devs aim to fix the recovery time for trading losses, so this problem will hopefully go away too.
Watch your six, npcs and cmdrs have different icons on the radar. Ghost interdictions are mostly npc interdictions. As we have a peer2peer network structure you are not always the host of your game instance. And they happen a lot as well when you just interdict npcs too. You can even trigger them as far as I know with certain inputs at the right time.
I think you've read the same person I have, in mentioning the "PvP Food Chain". Yes, traders are the "bottom" of the food chain. It's not an insult, it just is. There are people out there who LOVE playing the hunted (see any number of survival horror games).
The goal is to encourage THOSE types of people into playing. Reward the guy who likes being the proverbial normal human with one bullet in the zombie hoard. Give him or her the ability to outsmart the hunters intellectually. Sure, they'll die once and awhile, which is part of the game.
In my opinion, the "perfect" hunter vs. hunted interaction ends with the hunted barely escaping, maybe losing a little cargo, but scooting out to make a smaller profit than they would have made originally.
Perhaps a NPC pirate faction is needed, that gives bounty style payments for exploding the good guys. You can implement that, along with buffing the non-combat types a little so that, with intelligence and shrewd fitting, they can escape a hunter.
The silly people who fit all cargo no defense should burn in a fiery wreck on interdiction. They chose wrongly.
We are talking about point blank range when using dumbfire missiles, so yeah less than 300m, sometimes even less than 30m. ;-)
Why no fix fist the bugs, then nerf things latter?
I lost my target USS when interdicted.
I lost my target next system route when interdicted.
Can't use galaxy map with oculus rift
And don't tell me "works as intended" because they're fixing things that we already knew that was not as intended.
I lost my target USS when interdicted.
I lost my target next system route when interdicted.
Can't use galaxy map with oculus rift
And don't tell me "works as intended" because they're fixing things that we already knew that was not as intended.
This is the most important "bug" I have found so far, and the only thing I want from Elite long term. Having a NPC Cop in an Anarchy system magically appear when I drop out of super in deep space to go afk for a bit, immersion ruined.
Had the cop been in super with me and had followed me would be THE BEST THING EVER. Magic in space is not for me.
(I wait in super for a bit flying 100+ ls from any astro body in the system to look for commanders/npcs that might see me go afk, when I feel I'm truly alone as possible I drop out of super, FAoff, full speed iceball, wait 30 second, then go make lunch.
[Re planning my route is too painful to log out and logging in takes 10-15 mins for me at times so don't tell me to "just log off"]
I know someone *could* follow me or find me but I want them [npc or human] to follow the same game mechanics so that my willingness to strategize is rewarded and not discarded by a random event trigger. Otherwise why have Wakes anyhow?)
I mainly complain because ya'll like to use the word simulation around here, and that's what I want out of a space simulator.
Other than that I think ya'll are doing pretty darned well on this whole thing.
Thanks for your time and consideration.
I have had the same, I submit and have dropped into a solo instance a couple of times
BlackReign
Banned
I thought you said you haven't found a human player since the release? I'm confused.
Nope, we all should be happy about those people leaving open, because they don´t have the right attitude to enjoy open in the first place. Any artificial boundary that keeps them from logging off will just make them sour about their experience. And we want happy players in open, not grumpy ones, because toxic player will be poison for the overall community. I am very happy that we have solo and open as shared modes, because it opens up for players not in the mood for pvp to simply op out, now we just have to educate players to use that tool. Once they are in the mood to risk their ships against other players they are invited to join again in open as long as they want. It the much, much better solution and imho a brilliant design decision. Which is kind of funny, because in contest of most other design decisions it seems so strange and lucky to have nailed this thing as only game on the market.
That's all good and nice but what all pirates and their complaints forget is they all think they are the only pirate that trader gets interdicted by, and don't care he already submitted to the other 3-8 pirates before on that trip.
So it's not weird at some point the trader says , pff stuff it... I bail out.
They are not working only for pirates who all just wait along the way holding their hands out and want a share of the cut without having to work for it , and al the work is done by that trader !
"so please hand over 10% and I let you pass" is ok for once or twice but you have it done to ya 8 times every trip gets well , annoying maybe ?
So it's not weird at some point the trader says , pff stuff it... I bail out.
They are not working only for pirates who all just wait along the way holding their hands out and want a share of the cut without having to work for it , and al the work is done by that trader !
"so please hand over 10% and I let you pass" is ok for once or twice but you have it done to ya 8 times every trip gets well , annoying maybe ?
This seems like a good idea. But you need to block solo and group play than too for as long as this was not resolved and most players would still simply discon and play something else instead of giving up their cargo. So in the end it would not have the wanted result. Sorry.
My wife is like you. I would recommend to her too to play in solo or group play. That is exactly what does modes are for.
This is one of the reasons why solo and group play should have their own universe. Putting solo/group players together with open mode players does sound like a very bad idea. FD shouldn't have done this.
Personally I just fight all interdiction when hauling cargo. I win almost every time so I wouldn't submit because then I can't knock out my attacker's FSD briefly.
I do tend to watch the scanner, but I've been caught sleeping a couple of times. Once into the interdiction minigame, for the cases I checked the logs, I didn't see a player icon, but assumed that it must've been on the basis of the logs. I'm now tending towards the belief that NPCs in SC are spawned and "owned" by players sharing SC, and that another player's NPc can interdict yours. This would explain the foreign IP address despite the "isplayer=no" text.
Perhaps this should be taken to another thread, but it strikes me that trying to balance interdictions would be better done once we're sure they're actually working for everyone.
I disagree that trading is easy compared to other professions.
Whether it's trading, bounty hunting, or pirating, people will do what is least risk/profit for them. At first I did bounty hunting because it's very easy with relatively low risk with high payout compared to trading in small ships. Now that I have enough money trading in large ships has a relatively low risk with high payout. If you make trading have too high of risk I'll go back to bounty hunting.
For example looking at a Type 7 with full cargo I could lose 2 mil between cargo and insurance. If I got destroyed it could take as at least an hour to 2 hours to recover my losses (if I had enough money to cover insurance and be able to refill with cargo). If I were to get destroyed one out of 10 stops on my route I would likely be at a net loss of credits and would have to give up trading.
Point being people will gravitate where they see the "easier money" is. Perception doesn't always equal truth.
Whether it's trading, bounty hunting, or pirating, people will do what is least risk/profit for them. At first I did bounty hunting because it's very easy with relatively low risk with high payout compared to trading in small ships. Now that I have enough money trading in large ships has a relatively low risk with high payout. If you make trading have too high of risk I'll go back to bounty hunting.
For example looking at a Type 7 with full cargo I could lose 2 mil between cargo and insurance. If I got destroyed it could take as at least an hour to 2 hours to recover my losses (if I had enough money to cover insurance and be able to refill with cargo). If I were to get destroyed one out of 10 stops on my route I would likely be at a net loss of credits and would have to give up trading.
Point being people will gravitate where they see the "easier money" is. Perception doesn't always equal truth.
Actually he said he hadn't seen any "human wanted players" - and to be fair neither have I.
In fact is this at all related to all player's combat ratings appearing as Harmless?
I'm Expert currently, but another player confirmed that I'm just coming up as Harmless to them. Maybe all players are coming up Clean as well even though they're Wanted?
Hello Commanders!
I'd just like to add this morsel to the debate, again to explain where we're coming from.
<snip>
I hope this proves at least an interesting read
Words cannot express how much I am on board with this, and I hope your vision comes to fruition.
That said, given the assumption of achieveing a largely agreeable experience for both hunter and prey - where every check and balance is more or less working in order to provide a fun experience - I think it's safe to assume there are always going to be players who will alt+f4 to avoid any ultimate defeat. Are you considering any systems to deal with this, beyond tweaks to the delay between disconnection and the ship vanishing?
Another game I've played a fair deal of which also has a similar P2P structure and entails the possibility of PvP is Dark Souls 2. In this game repeat disconnections during player versus player encounters result in the player being limited in their access to the full online experience. This starts as a soft ban and can ramp up to a hard ban if the behaviour is persistent. Would you consider something similar, perhaps restricting access to Open for a short time after a consistent PvP related disconnects whilst playing in Open mode? I can imagine it would be fairly easy to differentiate between players who just have a terrible connection and those who are refusing to accept in game consequences.
Last edited:
Any reply that does not carefully consider what the original post intended is also a terrible idea.
Enforcing IFF = "Citizen, if you wish to join the Empire in this battle, you must enable IFF which shall lock your weapons and prevent you from firing upon friendly targets. Long live the Emperor!"
In-game/character consequences, there you go.
This is precisely the terrible idea I was assuming in my prior post. This is a heavy handed load of with the barest foil of an in-game explanation plated over it.
The game already uses some methods like this to override player choice, but largely only were there is actually an otherwise irreconcilable problem. Friendly fire, or deliberate fragging of an ally, is by no means such a problem, nor could ever be such a problem.
Also, what you advocate is impossible to actually make work without leaving absurd holes for abuses.
Hello Commanders!
I'd just like to add this morsel to the debate, again to explain where we're coming from.
I'm not overly interested in the whole "who wins the encounter" discussion, especially when the encounters can be very lopsided. I'm interested in how game play is served for both parties:
So a combat-heavy ship interdicts a trader. What's interesting to me here is: how are the players' game play needs being served? My first thought is: is the frequency and mechanics of the interdiction process working? If it is, then great, I know that the trader is facing a threat that I believe traders need to create interesting and exciting journeys.
I know that if I asked a bunch of traders about their thoughts on this particular interdiction they would all likely cry out in despair - the odds are stacked against them. But I have faith that the potential of this encounter makes their overall game play experience better (of course, this assumes that the frequency and game play is correct, something which might need a number of tweaks).
I look at the combat ship. Regardless of what their intent is, at this point in the game play they have a material advantage. But I want to make sure that the length and options of the encounter mean that both parties have at least *some* tricks to employ (hence I want to make sure that the trader could have fitted modules that make life more difficult if used well, and that the combat ship has the means to potentially prevent instant escape and actually attack). If you fly a stripped down trader with no shields or means to defend yourself, I contend that you are taking a calculated risk and can't complain too much when you get interdicted.
All in all, the end result of this encounter is mostly likely that the trader suffers some amount of material loss (the extreme being that they are destroyed) and that the combat ship more than likely has a bounty. Depending on player skill and materials involved the result can swing one way or another, but this is most likely outcome.
At this point, the trader needs to recoup their losses (being traders, they'll likely trade to do this). I believe we currently have some issues linked to the severity of their potential loss, but I suspect we may be able to find ways of softening the extreme cases a little better (tweaks to the credit line, for example is something we're looking at, or some changes to overall ship costs). Importantly, to me it makes no sense for the trader to perceive that they somehow "lost" this encounter - because the deck was stacked against them from the start.
The only sensible way for traders to assess how well they did is to consider how much they lost. And in a nutshell, this is where we have to make sure that traders can *if they wish* alter their ships to mitigate the loss caused by loss. Tough shields, armour, point defence, weapons - these all make a difference. For sure it's no guarantee that the trader can defeat the combat ship, but - if we get the numbers to the right place - it may well mean the difference between some hull/module damage and complete ship loss, depending on the equipment and *how well* it's used.
And I have to say that this is a core concept for the trader's basic journey. It really has nothing to do with them "beating" or "losing" to ships that are designed specifically for combat. It's about the dangers and efficiencies of haulage.
For the combat ship Commander, who presumably wants to fight - they now have a bounty which allows anyone to attack them in the area. Both player and AI ships can take advantage of this, and, again, almost certainly through some ongoing balancing, they should get more fights, which is kind of what they want, I would hope. The idea we want to create here is that living by the sword means risk of dying by the sword, potentially quite often.
Now, for the combat ship pilot who targets weaker ships then pays off the bounty instantly, I don't believe the answer is in making trader ships invincible, or impossible to find or catch. I'd suggest we will get better results in increasing the likelihood of dangerous combat encounters for them, such as tweaking the frequency of more powerful authority ships, especially around stars and starports, increasing the bounty they accrue based on the imbalance between ships, making bounties they accrue sit around as debt once they've been claimed - basically making their infamy count against them wherever we can do so and in so doing increase the chance for combat.
Again, this isn't to make them "lose", it's to provide an entertaining experience for them to work through. The only time player versus player becomes a clear cut case of win/lose is when too evenly fitted ships decide to slap each other about (which they can do, I have no issues with that).
I'd say that possibly we should look into AI to make sure that the more experienced Commanders can feel challenged, without destroying newer players. I think that there is perhaps room to look at rewards in addition to credits, to minimise the perception/reality that trading is the path of least resistance to progression. I think we can look at improving AI goals and activities in super cruise (for example having AI more interested in players based on how the player acts, maybe AI that can use wakes). We will also have lots of interesting situations to monitor when player wings and other features come on-line.
This game is certainly an ongoing endeavour and we're committed! All I'm saying here is that, due to the nature of the game, Commanders are going to inevitably find themselves in situations that aren't necessarily balanced or fair.
What I want to be able to do is make sure that Commanders who employ skill and knowledge (which can include knowing how to outfit your ship) maximize their success in those encounters.
Of course, to caveat, no guarantee or ETA on stuffs that are discussed here, it's simply me trying to explain our current line of thinking (and therefore is in no way immune to change!) Hopefully though, there's some food for thought (and of course, just because you disagree does not instantly make you "wrong" or us "right").
I hope this proves at least an interesting read
Just some player thoughts on this:
Sounds to me like you want to improve the limpet mechanics, increase shield and hull resistance of freighters to make an escape likely, decrease weight of armor for them to have not such an large impact on jump-range and decrease agility even more to limit the offensive powers of freighters to compensate for increased defensive values.
As mentioned before, imho limpets should transfer cargo automatically to your cargo hold as long as you can stay in close range to the freighter. If the freighter manages the shake you than the connection should break and you need another limpet. That is an interesting mechanic, is based on flight skills, does not require to damage the trade vessel, but instead damages the profits of the trader via cargo lost. NPC pirates should learn to do the same. It offers play and counterplay, it offers pirates a solid part of the excessive trading profits and does not punish traders usually too hard. To encourage the bounty hunter profession some % of the stolen cargo galactic average price could be added to the bounty of the pirate. The amount should a lot less than the destruction of a ship will yield, so the clumsy or brutal pirates would be the biggest target for bounty hunters. It involves that way as well choice and consequences for pirates: Should they use their loot profits directly to pay off a bounty or risk the extra attention and pay it off in form of ships lost.
Personally I think drives should be a legit target for pirates, which means they need to repair themselves over time to make sure that players can get back home after a pirate incident. To prevent pirates from capturing players that way forever they should create an emergency jump the moment they get repaired, so they can not be shot down twice in the same instance.
Lastly as said countless of times, killing freighters should come with excessive bounties, because those ships come with excessive costs too.
- Status