Interdiction Dodgers

[Agony_Aunt]

Why no fix fist the bugs, then nerf things latter?

Perhaps because FD have more than one developer, each with their own areas of specialization and responsibility. And there is a system of priorities when it comes to features/tweaks/bugs. If we assume they are using a typical agile/scrum methodology, then every day they will have team meetings where people report their progress from the previous day and tasks are assigned based in priority. Team Leads and Managers will likely have daily and weekly chats to discuss things like priorities for the day and coming days.

Now, looking at the current state of the game, what we know publicly of their priorities and then compare with the "bugs" you raise here. Assuming any of these were even on the radar for the meeting, i think it would go like this:

Problem: "I lost my target USS when interdicted."
Response: "Normal, you fly around a lot while being interdicted. USS only stay valid for a short range. Next."

Problem: "I lost my target next system route when interdicted."
Response: "Hmm.... yes, suppose it shouldn't do that as long as nothing else has been targetted. Give it a low priority though along with low serverity. Mark workaround as being to reselect target after interdiction."

Problem: "Can't use galaxy map with oculus rift"
Response: "Hmm, i've used galaxy map with occulus. Must be a specific configuration or driver issue. If the player supplied full hardware and driver details via the support site, then pass it over to the hardware specialists, see if they can figure it out. Priority? Well, its not a blocker and this is the first report we have of it. Medium priority, tell them to look at it when they get a minute or two. If estimate says it will take more than a few hours to fix, then drop the priority to Low."

"Now, can we move onto the major issues for the day?"

Ok, of course i'm not saying this is exactly what they will be saying in response to such tickets (you did ticket them didn't you?), but its probably a fair guess.

 

[Morbad]

Maybe, but they're also very very powerful against anybody in Asp or larger. There's room for something between no cycle a long cycle time. 0.5 seconds?

I think the cycle time is already 0.5 seconds.

You shouldn't want those who combat log to leave open, you should want them to stop combat logging while still playing open.

This is good for the community if players stop combat logging (if losing a ship doesn't mean losing days of time), and stay in open (for pirates to honorably steal from).

I'd be perfectly content with a slightly smaller community, if those who are willing to cheat to get their way aren't in it.

That super easy avoidable. Bounty payout is limited insurance costs of the destroyed ship. Make them pay for each and every credit of their bounty. That way the system can not be exploited to make credits. If you want to be especially mean about it, than the bounty payout is even just 50% of the insurance costs to make bounty trading not even remotely attractive, but imo that just creates a too great desire to pay bounties directly off.

I can still see ways to exploit this as the insurance cost of some ships, that some people fly quite poorly, could easily lead to a bounty more than large enough for some people to game the system to collect.

I think the current system is perfectly fine, as is, with one exception. There should be a delay before one can clear a bounty by paying it off. 24 hours would probably do the trick.

They are not defenseless. They can push the button and disappear. With such an ability, installing weapons and shields is a bit silly.

Yeah, and I can carry five aces up my sleeves every time I play five-card draw.

 

[Mephane]

Hello Commander tagos!

Sure, what we're aiming for is risky, but the concept of submitting just to escape straight away is simply not what we intended. I personally think that a part of the puzzle that's still missing to some degree is the super cruise game play aspect, which, after all, is the determining factor of whether interdiction can occur in the first place.

Why not just have the full FSD cooldown even after submission? Personally, I submit in three types of situations: a) I want to fight. b) I am not sure I will successfully escape, and want to avoid the annoying repair bill (especially on bigger ships - a single failed escape attempt on my Python recently cost me close to 40k for hull repair and extra wear&tear). c) I am in a ship so fast that it is simply easier to boost away from something slower (e.g. I fly a Cobra, the interdictor a Sidewinder).

If you remove submissions as an option, you should also remove the damage on successful interdiction/failed evasion.

 

[Agony_Aunt]

The thing is most traders have taken to flying unarmed and shieldless to increase cargo capacity.... Then they cry 'Griefer' and pull the plug when they get stopped by a pirate.

Citation please.

 

[StayFrosty]

<facedesk>
How often?
The PvP players who are in it for killing for the LULZ are the problem.
There is no real consequenzes.
I can grind you an char from nothing to viper or cobra in no time, and they are eperfect able to pop freighters, if i run two accounts (and you would be amazed how much some psychokids spend on that) in an week flat. Then i can pop freighters left and right with impunity.

Right now there is little reason for traders to risk npc and the psychotic pvp crowd combined, risk is fun, guranteed destruction pointless.

I don't quite see the point: traders definitely have it too easy, they keep complaining about losing millions others would dream of having, but then NPCs don't provide the slightest challenge to them.

Anyone can trade in solo and make millions, not everyone manages to make money from bounty hunting and exploring. So yes, challenge from NPCs needs a serious bump. It doesn't have much to do with players themselves, aside from some people complaining from "psychotic players" when "psychotic NPCs" don't bother them the slightest.

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

Citation please.

We get a couple posts every week. I myself kill plenty traders without shields. It's quite common.

 

[Darkwolf]

Both solutions are non-trivial, both have pros and cons. No ETA, but we are working towards fixing this exploit.

Sorry, what?

You're calling submitting to interdiction an exploit?

 

[Morbad]

My trade Cobra has no weapons, no shields, and stock bulkheads. I do this to increase jump range and speed, not cargo capacity. A2 PP, A3 distributor, A4 FSD, A4 thrusters, 4T fuel tank, A4 fuel scoop (empty to full in under ten seconds guaranteed!), the rest cargo racks, plus 1 PDT and 1 heatsink launcher.

I typically run under half maximum load, and the ship is so fast that I (rightfully) feel quite safe in it. If you have four weapons, a cargo scanner, shields and an FSD interdictor, you are automatically slower than me if I am hauling 25T or less.

 

[Sayne]

Hello Commanders!

We already have a system that keeps bounties alive when you are killed but they are not claimed (dormant bounties). I just think it would be too punishing to have bounties that kept on being active after respawning. Sure this would not be an issue for the tiny minority of super wealthy Commanders, but our data suggests that losing a ship is a non-trivial event for the majority of pilots - and having a more or less permanent target on your back would likely just stop people committing crimes. That's my current take, anyway.

We are considering bounty adjustments based on some difference metric between Commanders (for example, Elite Commanders getting slapped with a bigger bounty when attacking lower rated pilots, or perhaps based on ship strength).

Gonna go out on a limb here but... I... don't see a problem with making murderers have a permanent target on their back severe enough that nobody murders clean players anymore. That would bring me back into Open mode.

 

[Morbad]

Gonna go out on a limb here but... I... don't see a problem with making murderers have a permanent target on their back severe enough that nobody murders clean players anymore. That would bring me back into Open mode.

I think we are all better off if you just stay wherever you are.

 

[SE-Apocalypse]

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?

Nope, I have seen once a wanted viper. He left the system soon enough *g*.
But that one wanted viper makes still less than 1% of the overall players I have seen, so it is quite rare.

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

I can still see ways to exploit this as the insurance cost of some ships, that some people fly quite poorly, could easily lead to a bounty more than large enough for some people to game the system to collect.

Please elaborate, I can not follow you. If bounty payout is always equal or even smaller than the insurance costs how do you game the system? I mean outside of using the system to transfer money to others with a small to heavy tax depending on the developers liking.

 

[Bomba Luigi]

My concern with the possabitly to get rid of the submission are not other Player (Solo Guy here), but Time. While I can play sometimes very long withouth any interdiction, sometimes they happen a lot in a short amount of Time. If it then always takes really long to deal with it that will be really annoying.

One Interdiction alone is just a little annoying then, but when it constantly happens over the course of the Hunders of Hours I hope to put into this Game it will become a hugh Problem. Like a guy tipping on your Shoulder the whole day, you will hate him.

 

[Sayne]

I think we are all better off if you just stay wherever you are.

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.

 

[SE-Apocalypse]

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.

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.

 

[Mack Winston]

* Chaff is too powerful: Chaff launcher capacity is being reduced (and the munitions is being made more expensive). Like a few other modules that use resources, our initial numbers managed to get out of line with other module balancing passes.

No, chaff is not too powerful. It forces people to use fixed weapons instead of gimballed, thus raising the skill ceiling. If chaff gets nerfed then everyone just flies with gimbals/turrets and it just becomes a simple exercise on who spent the most money on arms.

What surprises me is that you're considering changes to chaff which really isn't a problem - the real problem is shield cell batteries. If anything needs a nerf, it's them.

 

[lexandro]

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.

By playing OPEN mode you expressly consent to PvP content. OPEN is both PvP and PvE. If you do not consent to PvP, play SOLO mode. That is what its for.

Also; Game =/= real life

Getting destroyed in the game by a player for no reason is EXACTLY the same as the AI destroying you. There is no difference. Also there is no murder, you do not die. You are rescue podded to the last station you landed at. The only thing you lose is capital and property.

 

[Rivka]

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.

You should most likely stick to solo or trusted groups then. I really doubt Frontier is going to implement an instant on/off PVP flag. "Getting mugged" is something that Frontier is encouraging, while looking for ways to make said "mugging" fun for both sides.

Also, inability to differentiate between reality and pretend is a sure sign of mental illness. We're playing a video game here, which is pretend. Our only rules are the rules the designers set down for us.

I mean, unless you're actually advocating assault and murder charges RL for in-game actions, why even mention them?

 

[tagos]

Anyone can trade in solo and make millions

So what?

 

[Commander Silex]

What surprises me is that you're considering changes to chaff which really isn't a problem - the real problem is shield cell batteries. If anything needs a nerf, it's them.

They're changing them too.

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

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.

In the real world if you crash your car at speed into a brick wall (because you're checking webpages whilst driving) you're likely to suffer life changing injuries. Doesn't mean it should be that realistic in a game.

 

[Morbad]

Please elaborate, I can not follow you. If bounty payout is always equal or even smaller than the insurance costs how do you game the system? I mean outside of using the system to transfer money to others with a small to heavy tax depending on the developers liking.

Are you talking about the insurance cost of the attacker or the victim?

Something like a well kitted Type-9, if piloted recklessly, can be destroyed very quickly by a Cobra, Viper, or occasionally even Eagle, yet will have a significant insurance cost.

if you are talking about the attacker's insurance value, how do you make claiming large bounties in fighter class ships even viable? My typical Viper loadout only has an insurance cost of about 110k credits.

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'm anti-consent-form-required.

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.

Yet, these things are still omnipresent, even in developed areas with strong, competent, police forces. Most assaults are never even reported, and half of murder cases go unsolved, in a typical wealthy western democracy.

In a third world cesspool, you have to do something profoundly stupid to risk being caught by the authorities for a murder you actually committed.

Most areas in ED are more plausibly close to the latter than the former.

 

[Underhook]

One word: chaff. Simply enough, gimballed weapons just do not work against me, or any player who is set up for PvP. It's amazing how many pilots think that they will. The only way you're getting any sort of hits on me is with fixed weapons.

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