Interdiction Dodgers

[Sayne]

Our dear lead designer said he want to make sure that it is a fair encounter in regards of giving a trader a chance to limit his losses. What it be so bad if you have a small chance to kill your target, a good chance to lose a little bit of cargo, but an even better chance to escape? Sounds like quite the fair encounter to me with chances to counter-play against the attacking player.

I would guess that type-6 has stronger shields than a cobra for a reason.

I mean, I think that makes sense. Drastically increasing murder bounties would be the downside faced by a pirate (and not even in the draconian "permanent target on your back" sort of way, but just increasing it beyond its currently trivial amount as they are suggesting doing) and the loss of cargo but still chance of escape would be the downside faced by a trader.

On another topic, I think the solution to chaff is to simply make it so you can only carry one chaff module (and maybe decrease the ammo count) so that you can't keep 100% uptime on chaff. I dunno, I find it's sufficient to hold fire when dazzled by chaff and start shooting as soon as it's clear. But I don't PVP that much, I just fight NPCs 90% of the time and they're pants-on-head stupid.

Personally I wish they made chaff more effective against Pirate Lord Anacondas, since they still always manage to hit me when I chaff and I have to pop a shield cell (which they are nerfing soon).

 

[aeshec]

Great post Sandro! Thanks for taking the time to update us. We're out here in the depths of space rooting pretty loudly for you all. Great job!

 

[Commander Silex]

Yep, the problem is: If you don't own a joystick with sensitivity adjustment (I dont) then its very difficult to use fixed weapons.

I 'manage' on Xbox controller, but it's far from ideal. The equipment players use definitely makes a difference. The thing is, even chaff isn't the ultimate foil for gimballed weapons. You can just untarget and they default to fixed ahead.

- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -

Personally I wish they made chaff more effective against Pirate Lord Anacondas, since they still always manage to hit me when I chaff and I have to pop a shield cell (which they are nerfing soon).

I'm not sure chaff is intended to be a complete brick wall to gimballed weapons, it certainly significantly reduces incoming damage tho.

 

[Helvellyn]

Heh. If you say so.

I'm not anti-PVP, I'm anti one-sided, non-consensual PVP. I like fights with other players from time to time, but that's in a "Hey, CMDR Steve, you wanna have a duel?" kind of way. I just don't like getting mugged.

I mean, here in the ostensibly civilized present day world, you can get locked up for 10 years for assault and some states kill murderers.

Yes and no, IMO there should be fairly safe and dull places where getting mugged is very unlikely (too harsh a penalty for the attacker) - I can't really see it as likely that there wouldn't be big consequences for attacking people in places like Sol or Achenar. At the other extreme though going to Anarchies should be asking for trouble. "Is going to this place too risky?" should be part of a pilot's decision-making. Move towards the edges of inhabited space and the odds of bumping into another CMDR are very slim (although I'd prefer a more lore-friendly way of finding somewhere safe).

"Do you want to have a dual?" is too much like a pre-organised arena (although players organising such a thing themselves sounds like a good idea), and that's really not what the game is about IMO. It's about chance encounters, deciding whether to take a risk or not.

The various comments suggest that we've got "Impossible to defend myself" vs "impossible to catch them before they escape". Neither of those are very good; ultimately the best solution to that would be support (wings, NPC escorts, whatever) and a bit more time needed to escape. Then whether organising those is worth it or not becomes yet another factor a pilot needs to consider, and I think the more decisions like that needed the better.

- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -

I'm not sure chaff is intended to be a complete brick wall to gimballed weapons, it certainly significantly reduces incoming damage tho.

Does it affect turrets?

 

[Mr. Bridger]

Can't say I've noticed this, although I have been interdicted only for no one to show up plenty of times.

I have interdicted a few players just to be nosey and they've attacked me first, obviously seeing the interdiction as an aggressive act. That's always good fun!

 

[Commander Silex]

Does it affect turrets?

It is supposed to.

 

[Sayne]

I'm not sure chaff is intended to be a complete brick wall to gimballed weapons, it certainly significantly reduces incoming damage tho.

I'm sure you're right, but when I fight those guys and they manage to level their bow on me and blast away with their turrets, chaff or no chaff my windscreen is full of blue shield hits from the turrets.

It could just be the fact that they're firing a dozen turrets at me, but when I'm fighting someone and they use chaff, my gimbals go haywire and I can't hit the broad side of a starport.

Could just be imagining it, I'm not sure.

 

[SyberSmoke]

Hello Commanders!


(SNIP)

I hope this proves at least an interesting read

I think after looking through the thread and reading a bit of it, I will toss in my two cents. Mainly that there are a lot of assumptions in both the player and developer comments that go against basic human nature.

First: pirates are inherently cowards. This is not meant to be an insult, just look at modern piracy. The pirates attack cruise ships and cargo ships, they are NOT after the cargo, instead they are after a ransom from the companies that own the ship. Their goal is simple, get in, extort money, then run like heck. They do not want to fight as long as it is not necessary. And in most cases Pirates will avoid conflict simply because there is nothing for them in it.

So the assumption that piracy as a profession means that a pirate player is looking for PvP is flawed. People will interdict to try and extort cargo, but cargo is a pain really...bets are pirates would be far happier have a situation as follows:

1. A ship is interdicted.
2. The ship is disabled, preferably using nonlethal methods (ion cannon?)
3. That target is propositioned, "Transfer 100k credits or drop your cargo and you live."
4. Target gets their systems back and either complies, flees, or fights. Compliance for a pirate is preferred.
5. Depending on outcome of four...some one leaves or both leave.

Now of coarse there is the random element in this, that being players who DO want PvP and generally are not pirates. Instead they are looking just to blow some one up. In this case interdiction is a means to that end. The issue is, we do not know who we have...the pirate we can bribe or the PvP player that just wants the world to burn.

I am not against piracy...I just believe there should be better ways to go about it. Just as there should be better ways to transfer money as trading platinum to trade funds is just a pain in the tail.

As for traders, this is a serious risk reward issue. In some cases we are talking about hours over hours of game time that a player is risking. It is not about the cost o the goods as much as the time it takes to fill your hold and move around the map. This effort, something that can not be replaced, can lead to a lot of issues.

I know that if I was trading, and I had just spent hours of time collecting wares for sale only to have my ship turned to digital dust, that is time I will never get back. Compound this with the loss of funds from the cargo and the unpredictability of human players and it makes far more sense for traders to stay out of open play.

Finally, I do not believe that as many people are looking for Player vs Player as is believed. When I have played MMO's I have typically avoided PvP because it is unpredictable and there are people that have nothing but time to make twink characters where I do not. I played those games though for Player with Player (PwP) interactions. Running dungeons, fighting battles, etc. This made PvP more palatable as long as I was with player I could trust. But if not, I prefer PvE as the risk to reward is just not that beneficial other wise.

I hope this shines a little added light on things or at least adds another opinion into the pot.

 

[Sayne]

Can't say I've noticed this, although I have been interdicted only for no one to show up plenty of times.

I have interdicted a few players just to be nosey and they've attacked me first, obviously seeing the interdiction as an aggressive act. That's always good fun!

Actually that might be a thing to implement too... make interdiction itself equivalent to shooting a clean player: have yourself a fine or bounty. Interdiction is clearly an aggressive action, I think it makes sense for it to be treated as such.

 

[Helvellyn]

It is supposed to.

Cheers, I'll put it down to my piloting ability when I still get chewed up by them then.

 

[Commander Silex]

I'm sure you're right, but when I fight those guys and they manage to level their bow on me and blast away with their turrets, chaff or no chaff my windscreen is full of blue shield hits from the turrets.

It could just be the fact that they're firing a dozen turrets at me, but when I'm fighting someone and they use chaff, my gimbals go haywire and I can't hit the broad side of a starport.

Could just be imagining it, I'm not sure.

I suspect your first assumption is probably close to the mark. I tend to pop chaff fairly often when fighting those guys just so I don't need shield cells so often. I usually find the same thing if they manage to get their bow towards me, but I also notice a lot of shots going wide and I'm certainly far less troubled by the incoming fire. Potentially the effect on turrets is to make targetting very wide rather than impossible.

 

[SE-Apocalypse]

I mean, I think that makes sense. Drastically increasing murder bounties would be the downside faced by a pirate (and not even in the draconian "permanent target on your back" sort of way, but just increasing it beyond its currently trivial amount as they are suggesting doing) and the loss of cargo but still chance of escape would be the downside faced by a trader.

On another topic, I think the solution to chaff is to simply make it so you can only carry one chaff module (and maybe decrease the ammo count) so that you can't keep 100% uptime on chaff. I dunno, I find it's sufficient to hold fire when dazzled by chaff and start shooting as soon as it's clear. But I don't PVP that much, I just fight NPCs 90% of the time and they're pants-on-head stupid.

Personally I wish they made chaff more effective against Pirate Lord Anacondas, since they still always manage to hit me when I chaff and I have to pop a shield cell (which they are nerfing soon).

Chaffs are clearly balanced around having just one, having a script to use several automatically is for me literally the same as cheating/botting. Pirate lord anacondas do stop hitting me if I chaff btw. Their gimbal/turrets stop focusing and fire beams in all directions like a disco globe. Frontal I am so rarely, so they might have some fixed guns there.

 

[Cosmos]

Great post Sandro! Thanks for taking the time to update us. We're out here in the depths of space rooting pretty loudly for you all. Great job!

Indeed, its appreciated

Another thing to consider re this whole issue is the risk and reward players face when visiting a system which should be considered relatively safe and ones that are down right dangerous to be in. I can visit many Anarchies and I feel there is no more danger than going to the likes of Sol or Achenar where one would expect things to be much safer. Certainly back in the original Elite going to an Anarchy or Feudal system felt dangerous and risky. If this was the case in ED it could spice up trading, with some of the more lucrative routes really having that danger.

Want to be fairly safe? Stick to well policed areas.. Want to make a huge profit.. take the risk and head into the danger zone. Again back in the original I would remember breathing a sigh of relief having made it to my destination. When counting profits from such a run it felt like an achievement.

 

[Sayne]

Chaffs are clearly balanced around having just one, having a script to use several automatically is for me literally the same as cheating/botting.

No I mean you can mount two chaff modules and then pop the second one while the first is reloading, this results in about 100% uptime on the chaff. I suppose you could macro that if you were very patient, but what I've seen / heard of is people carrying two and alternating them.

 

[Commander Silex]

Actually that might be a thing to implement too... make interdiction itself equivalent to shooting a clean player: have yourself a fine or bounty. Interdiction is clearly an aggressive action, I think it makes sense for it to be treated as such.

I'd say that is too far, it would also tag bounty hunters as criminals simply for pulling someone up. Sure they might be a bit close to the mark dragging people out of Supercruise to KSW scan them, but illegal? Why would you even be able to buy them if simply using them is illegal? There'd be absolutely no need for them in self defense, which is the typical reason for weapons being legal.

What might work is that using them immediately tags you as an aggressor i.e. red on the scanner, but even then that's going to make people more likely to engage in combat rather than wait to hear if there's going to be terms or some other reason beyond violence.

That's why in the long run I think the current system is best. It leaves most of the decision making as to the response and intent of the interdictor to players to determine. The more we as players have to use our noodle and respond dynamically the better.

 

[DogTailRed2]

I had a weird thing today.
Chased an USS, popped out of SC and there was a formation of ships, about 8 of them. Looked really neat.
I was flying close trying to formate when suddenly `pop` and they all dissapeared.

 

[SE-Apocalypse]

No I mean you can mount two chaff modules and then pop the second one while the first is reloading, this results in about 100% uptime on the chaff. I suppose you could macro that if you were very patient, but what I've seen / heard of is people carrying two and alternating them.

People do macro that even. So it is 100% up time with no player interaction, a 100% immunity to gimbals and turret buff for two utility slots. It kind of not ideal and imo the devs never thought about people using just several of the same modules. Same for the shield cells which people run as well with several.

 

[Sayne]

I'd say that is too far, it would also tag bounty hunters as criminals simply for pulling someone up. Sure they might be a bit close to the mark dragging people out of Supercruise to KSW scan them, but illegal? Why would you even be able to buy them if simply using them is illegal? There'd be absolutely no need for them in self defense, which is the typical reason for weapons being legal.

True, but I imagine they could make it like how the current attack system works. You can interdict a wanted player for no bounty (just like you can blow them up for no bounty - they have a bounty on their head after all) but if you pull a clean player out of supercruise to pirate them, just the act of pulling them out warrants a fine.

People do macro that even. So it is 100% up time with no player interaction, a 100% immunity to gimbals and turret buff for two utility slots. It kind of not ideal and imo the devs never thought about people using just several of the same modules. Same for the shield cells which people run as well with several.

Yeesh, people ARE more patient than I expect then. Yeah you should clearly be limited to one chaff module and shield cell, just like shield generators.

 

[Helvellyn]

True, but I imagine they could make it like how the current attack system works. You can interdict a wanted player for no bounty (just like you can blow them up for no bounty - they have a bounty on their head after all) but if you pull a clean player out of supercruise to pirate them, just the act of pulling them out warrants a fine.

I don't really like the sound of that, it's going too much the other way. If it was to work like that then it should only be in a few of the highest security systems.

 

[lexandro]

Chaff is not 100% immunity to gimbals / turrets. I don't know where people get this idea. Chaff makes it harder to hit, it does not gaurantee no hits at all. In point of fact if you are close enough it doesn't even matter if you use chaff you will absolutely get hit such is the line of fire and the proximity to the weapons firing on you.