Introducing AID - the Anti Interdiction Device

[[VR] Zakk]

Once you explain how a button to essentially disable an entire activity is even a game.

In the same fashion as a shield generator is "even a game". Or hardened bulk heads. You equip your ship to protect it against unwanted effects. That costs CR, adds weight, blocks slots - but offers protection.

Now you.

I don't see a need for this since open only is prolly not going to happen. Yes, gankers, pirates, other PvPers, and open only BGS people, might want to get rid of PG/Solo modes because it would force whatever players that did not quit the game over it, into open. But I can't see Open becoming the only mode available any more than I can an Open PvE mode coming into existence. However much anyone might want those things. Especially since the console players have to pay for online modes.

I agree. But while I'm neither a ganker, pirate, PvPer or BGS player, I still think seeing more human players would be one little step towards making the galaxy feel a little less generic.

Overall, the ED community is great and full of helpful and supportive CMDRs, who write their own stories in a game that hardly provides any.

Still, most interaction between CMDRs takes place outside the game, as playing in open inevitably subjects you to the small subset of CMDRs whose greatest enjoyment in ED lies in ruining the gaming experience for others. A common problem for MMO games, and one that is actively addressed by pretty much every MMO provider for good reasons. PvP games use matchmaking in an attempt to establish balanced matchups between players of roughly the same skill group. Story-driven open world games offer options to avoid PvP combat interactions for players who prefer to avoid it.

This concept here is an idea for how the MMO part of the game (i.e., playing in open) could be made more attractive to a broader player base. I don't expect this idea to be picked up, and I fully expected the ganker/git-gud crowd to raise a clamour immediately. That's nothing new.

AID alone wouldn't be enough, of course. The instancing would need to be readressed, as would the still existing problem with cheaters. Crime & punishment could still use another workover, if you ask me. I posted a concept idea for that before the last c&p overhaul already:

How to make griefing more fun

Okay, now that I got your attention... ;) Seriously, though - yes, this is the 997th thread about what FDev could do about griefing. Many (if not all) of these ideas have probably been posted before. Still, it's a collection of things that did cross my mind over time, and I tried to convert...

forums.frontier.co.uk

It's all just ideas. I'm not a secret undercover FDev agent looking for feedback on features that are in the pipeline already. The chances that any of these ideas will be picked up are minimal to none. That won't stop me from posting more, though. You've been warned.

 

[[VR] Zakk]

Agreed on that. As far as I'm concerned the flippant replies here personify this mentality.

But there are multiple loopholes in your AID device.

1. The module is a burden, so most players concerned about ganking will still choose solo or mobius (and defeating the point of the module)
2. Even for those who equip it in open, it completely guts piracy gameplay just to prevent ganking in supercruise. Collateral damage.
3. It doesn't prevent ganking in normal space around high traffic locations (farseer blockade, suicidewinder ram)

This module wouldn't change any consideration for me. My exploration Anaconda and mining Cutter will still reside in Mobius/Solo, and my fully engineered combat corvette will stay in open/mobius with the same loadout as they do now.

I fully agree with you. Your #1 is the reason why I wrote, it's basically an idea for a "forced open" scenario.

I'm mostly playing on Mobius myself, btw. And while there is little interaction with the odd CMDR I meet every other week, I still thoroughly enjoy it whenever I see a hollow square on the radar, will always scan them and look at their ship in a close flypast (if possible).

That why I think that drawing more players into Open would be a good thing for the game.

#2 is indeed an issue, btw. As I posted in my other thread that I linked above, I would not want to do away with legitimate PvP piracy. As far as I am concerned, the game needs legit pirates that are after your valuable cargo.

I don't think AID would kill this completely, though. For mining, there is still a chance to attack miners directly at the RES. And in supercruise, the question is how many players would indeed equip their mining or cargo ships with AID, if it would significantly reduce their ship's cargo capacity. The sacrifice needs to be big enough for CMDRs to ask themselves if they really want to invest that much in increased safety.

#3 is true - these issues would still need to be addressed, and require an individual solution. AID won't help here.

 

[Rubbernuke]

No, this is simply a bad idea unless FD change other areas of the game to compensate.

Right now you can take off in total safety, with this idea SC would be safe, and when you drop down you drop right into the stations protection. Currently SC is the only place a station to station cargo run can be disrupted- it would totally break missions and Powerplay.

 

[Masta Squidge]

Yes lets make the gane even less challenging by removing conflict completely!

Or, you know, we could actually make it so victims can avoid the interdiction more than 0% of the time. But then all the griefers "emergent gameplay" champions would cry about how unfair it is.

 

[JonesTheFilm]

There are plenty of other reasons solo players exist other than 'fear' of being interdicted by other players.

Some (like me) just like to play ED in the style of the original games - single player.

For others internet connection quality or computer spec can be an issue and solo mode will often just work better than open in some of those cases.

As mentioned already console players have to pay an extra subscription fee to play ED in open (or PG for that matter).

 

[Rick6549]

Or, you know, we could actually make it so victims can avoid the interdiction more than 0% of the time. But then all the griefers "emergent gameplay" champions would cry about how unfair it is.

Or you could also learn to play

 

[[VR] Zakk]

No, this is simply a bad idea unless FD change other areas of the game to compensate.

Right now you can take off in total safety, with this idea SC would be safe, and when you drop down you drop right into the stations protection. Currently SC is the only place a station to station cargo run can be disrupted- it would totally break missions and Powerplay.

It's not a one-size-fits-all solution that would remove all issues there may or may not be, that's true. And indeed, you'd have to be careful to avoid breaking existing parts of the game.

But there are solutions for the problems you mentioned. For mission running, you can block the best paying missions for CMDRs who use AID. "Sorry, commander, but during this mission, you will likely be interdicted by attackers of our opposing faction. We need you to deal with these attackers, so we cannot give you this mission if you have AID installed."

Coupled with the reduced cargo capacity of an AID vessel, you can still make in-game progress by flying missions with AID installed, but progress will be significantly slower, and payouts lower. Once again - no safety net without a price.

Same for Powerplay. To join a Powerplay faction, you need to be able to engage (and be engaged) in combat by other powers. You cannot do anything that would count as progress towards Powerplay if you have AID installed.

Speaking of "engage and be engaged" - of course, AID would have to be incompatible with an FSD Interdictor module. It's either/or, or none of both, but not both at the same time. That would also make it impossible to fly bounty hunting missions with AID.

 

[Masta Squidge]

Or you could also learn to play

Clearly missed the point. The interdiction game is presently a worthless waste of time. Can't learn to play that because it's effectively a 100% lose rate for the target.

 

[Jmanis]

In the same fashion as a shield generator is "even a game". Or hardened bulk heads. You equip your ship to protect it against unwanted effects. That costs CR, adds weight, blocks slots - but offers protection.

Shield Generator doesn't completely remove the ability for a ship to attack you, it just mitigates damage for a period of time.

Look, I get your post, and would love to see better defensive single-purpose[1] fittings for ships... a module that disables interdictions is not one of them though.

• Interdiction spike: Uses an ammunition with a slow cooldown, instantly gives you an extra square in the interdiction minigame.
• Signature Decoy: Adds multiple signals indistinguishable from yours, triggers a long cooldown (15-20 seconds) on the FSD interdictor if they pick the wrong one.
• Interdiction Hypertension Modification: Engineering for your FSD, makes an interdictor have to close to a smaller distance in order to tether for interdict.
• FSD Overcharge Module: A module you can fit... while interdicted you can spool up the FSD to break tether, similar to a high wake, but affected by the grade of the interdictor being used.

Conversely, there should be optional modules/engineering that pirates can use to overcome these defensive measures. To apply that directly to your suggestion (which is basically an "Off" switch for interdictions) then a pirate should be able to fit a module that overrides that. Heck, let's make an FSDI an actual hardpoint rather than optional internal too (this has always bugged me that the tether isn't "fired" from the ship).

The problem in the game, IMO, is there's a lack of diversity of options for player offence and defence. Right now, all a "noncombatant" can do is be agile, manouver and fit tank. But they'll always be outclassed by a dedicated fighter. They can be assured that a fighter interdicting a noncombatant (fit for hauling or whatever) will always have the upper hand, because of the fittings necessary.

But by offering a range of defensive options to "noncombatants", and offering comparative aggressor modules, the aggressor now needs to balance tank and power, vs ability to actually snag the target. If I'm a trader, and fit Interdiction spikes and an Overcharge module, and someone without any "aggressor" fittings comes after me, they'll have a hard time even interdicting me, so the fact they're armed to the teeth is useless, because they can't interdict anything. But then they might sacrifice a good portion of their tank and weapons, in order to actually secure their interdictions. And against a hauler without these fits, but with a mean tank and weapons, that hauler may now actually stand a chance.

Having a module that just "turns off" interdiction is dumb. What's needed is defensive modules that give haulers the upper hand, and makes aggressors sacrifice their tank and weaponry to secure the kill, at the heightened risk of now being killed by a different armed, armoured hauler.

WRT your actual question, I can't answer a question of subjective opinion. You ask:

"please tell me how the interdiction minigame is an immersive and rewarding solution to avoiding interdictions? "

It already is... any activity in the game has risk, and the reward of avoiding interdiction is the successful completion of your objective. Seems fine to me... but if you don't agree, it's a waste of time for me to try and convince you otherwise. Either way, a module to disable interdictions is pretty short-sighted.


[1] as opposed to dual-purpose, which could be used for offensive reasons, though as later explained, it wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing.

 

[Rubbernuke]

It's not a one-size-fits-all solution that would remove all issues there may or may not be, that's true. And indeed, you'd have to be careful to avoid breaking existing parts of the game.

But there are solutions for the problems you mentioned. For mission running, you can block the best paying missions for CMDRs who use AID. "Sorry, commander, but during this mission, you will likely be interdicted by attackers of our opposing faction. We need you to deal with these attackers, so we cannot give you this mission if you have AID installed."

Coupled with the reduced cargo capacity of an AID vessel, you can still make in-game progress by flying missions with AID installed, but progress will be significantly slower, and payouts lower. Once again - no safety net without a price.

Same for Powerplay. To join a Powerplay faction, you need to be able to engage (and be engaged) in combat by other powers. You cannot do anything that would count as progress towards Powerplay if you have AID installed.

Speaking of "engage and be engaged" - of course, AID would have to be incompatible with an FSD Interdictor module. It's either/or, or none of both, but not both at the same time. That would also make it impossible to fly bounty hunting missions with AID.

I get where you are coming from- in effect you are self excluding the higher tiers of the game in exchange for safety.

What I don't like (and this is more across ED in general) is that ED has lots of features to fracture apart the experience of being a commander in a dangerous place, and very few to bring them together.

What I'd prefer:

You have a one use module like an energy bomb that breaks interdiction- so, if you had a large ship with 8 module slots you could escape 8 times max.

The interdiction game better takes your ship weights, interdictor rating and engineering into account.

Better engineering blueprints: have an experimental that makes you harder to interdict; stealth armour thats poor in real space but makes you hard to spot in SC,

In short, I want to give players tools to evade, but not give them a switch- it has to enrich the game.

 

[Deleted member 110222]

Nobody wants to get interdicted.

That's literally why the mechanic exists.

 

[[VR] Zakk]

Shield Generator doesn't completely remove the ability for a ship to attack you, it just mitigates damage for a period of time.

Look, I get your post, and would love to see better defensive single-purpose[1] fittings for ships... a module that disables interdictions is not one of them though.

• Interdiction spike: Uses an ammunition with a slow cooldown, instantly gives you an extra square in the interdiction minigame.
• Signature Decoy: Adds multiple signals indistinguishable from yours, triggers a long cooldown (15-20 seconds) on the FSD interdictor if they pick the wrong one.
• Interdiction Hypertension Modification: Engineering for your FSD, makes an interdictor have to close to a smaller distance in order to tether for interdict.
• FSD Overcharge Module: A module you can fit... while interdicted you can spool up the FSD to break tether, similar to a high wake, but affected by the grade of the interdictor being used.

Conversely, there should be optional modules/engineering that pirates can use to overcome these defensive measures. To apply that directly to your suggestion (which is basically an "Off" switch for interdictions) then a pirate should be able to fit a module that overrides that. Heck, let's make an FSDI an actual hardpoint rather than optional internal too (this has always bugged me that the tether isn't "fired" from the ship).

The problem in the game, IMO, is there's a lack of diversity of options for player offence and defence. Right now, all a "noncombatant" can do is be agile, manouver and fit tank. But they'll always be outclassed by a dedicated fighter. They can be assured that a fighter interdicting a noncombatant (fit for hauling or whatever) will always have the upper hand, because of the fittings necessary.

But by offering a range of defensive options to "noncombatants", and offering comparative aggressor modules, the aggressor now needs to balance tank and power, vs ability to actually snag the target. If I'm a trader, and fit Interdiction spikes and an Overcharge module, and someone without any "aggressor" fittings comes after me, they'll have a hard time even interdicting me, so the fact they're armed to the teeth is useless, because they can't interdict anything. But then they might sacrifice a good portion of their tank and weapons, in order to actually secure their interdictions. And against a hauler without these fits, but with a mean tank and weapons, that hauler may now actually stand a chance.

Having a module that just "turns off" interdiction is dumb. What's needed is defensive modules that give haulers the upper hand, and makes aggressors sacrifice their tank and weaponry to secure the kill, at the heightened risk of now being killed by a different armed, armoured hauler.

WRT your actual question, I can't answer a question of subjective opinion. You ask:

"please tell me how the interdiction minigame is an immersive and rewarding solution to avoiding interdictions? "

It already is... any activity in the game has risk, and the reward of avoiding interdiction is the successful completion of your objective. Seems fine to me... but if you don't agree, it's a waste of time for me to try and convince you otherwise. Either way, a module to disable interdictions is pretty short-sighted.


[1] as opposed to dual-purpose, which could be used for offensive reasons, though as later explained, it wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing.

Not a waste of time at all. The purpose of the thread was to throw an idea out into the open and discuss it.
I just try to ignore the 'git gud' crowd as good as I can

I actually like a lot of the stuff you posted there. What still bugs me about the interdiction minigame is that I don't find it immersive ('mah immershun!!1!", I know ). What happens to the interdicting vessel when you evade the interdiction? Where does it vanish to? Why is the interdictor relocated to another dimension, and not the fleeing interdicted vessel?

Of course, we know the reason. If the interdictor would remain in place, they could try over and over and over again. And if the interdicted vessel would be forced to high-wake upon evasion, they would never reach their destination.

But yeah - taking the existing concept and making it better might be another way to solve the problem. Probably an even better one.

I especially like the idea of moving the FSDI from Utility Mount to Hardpoint. That would require pirates to make an equipment sacrifice as well. Win the option to interdict others, but sacrifice firepower to do so. If OTOH you upgrade the anti-FSDI measures through an Optional Internal device, you could work towards kinda rock-paper-scissors game between interdictors and interdicted.

Mount an FSDI to a small hardpoint, and you will have minimal chances to succesfully interdict a vessel that spent a size 6 or bigger optional slot on an AID.
Sacrifice a large (or even huge) hardpoint for an FSDI, and you will interdict almost everything - but you will be lacking firepower. Advantage armed trader, who doesn't need an FSDI and thus carries full armament.

I like that idea, I really do! Protect yourself against interdictions, and you will have to sacrifice jump range and cargo capacity.
Give yourself better chances to interdict others, and you will have to sacrifice firepower.

Either way, you're tweaking your chances to succeed, but you'll never have a 100% guarantee.

Great stuff!

I get where you are coming from- in effect you are self excluding the higher tiers of the game in exchange for safety.

What I don't like (and this is more across ED in general) is that ED has lots of features to fracture apart the experience of being a commander in a dangerous place, and very few to bring them together.

What I'd prefer:

You have a one use module like an energy bomb that breaks interdiction- so, if you had a large ship with 8 module slots you could escape 8 times max.

The interdiction game better takes your ship weights, interdictor rating and engineering into account.

Better engineering blueprints: have an experimental that makes you harder to interdict; stealth armour thats poor in real space but makes you hard to spot in SC,

In short, I want to give players tools to evade, but not give them a switch- it has to enrich the game.

I like the limited charge "bu**er off" device idea. One device per ship, 1 charge per 2 slot sizes. Not rechargeable in flight, kinda like the SCB. A huge AID may carry you through one cargo run, but not through a stacked mission. Balance your risk. You have a safety net, but it comes with limited charges. And you still need to sacrifice jump range and cargo capacity to use it.

 

[AngryAntz]

I can't wait for Leo to tell me "Carebear mode activated" in his droll voice.

 

[CMDR X]

Clearly missed the point. The interdiction game is presently a worthless waste of time. Can't learn to play that because it's effectively a 100% lose rate for the target.

He's got a point there..

 

[Jmanis]

Clearly missed the point. The interdiction game is presently a worthless waste of time. Can't learn to play that because it's effectively a 100% lose rate for the target.

Is it? Only time i don't win is if I'm in a T9 caught doing an out-of-blue speed and am off cooking something and get behind the eightball too early.

 

[ebbrell]

I have escaped an NPC interdiction in my T9 a few times to be honest.

 

[Masta Squidge]

I have escaped an NPC interdiction in my T9 a few times to be honest.

NPC interdiction is a joke.

Player interdiction is not.

 

[Broken_One]

Dear Commanders and Commandrettes,

After years of meticulous research, the Lanley Institute for Engineering (LIE) proudly presents: AID - the Anti Interdiction Device!

Already exists

How does it work?

You fly your ship out of the interdiction.

In fact, most baddies won't even interdict you anymore, as they can see from your ship's signature that you have an active AID installed. So chances are they won't even bother trying.

(this is why I use a combat trader )

What do you need?

I large ship with 8c prismatics, good sheild boosters, fast reaction time, and the sense to high wake out when things get hairy

/lore

An idea for a "forced open" scenario. I know the hardcore players will cry "foul!" immediately, but let's face it - there are a lot of players out there who simply do not want to be interdicted.

No one is forced in to open. The truth is that people WANT to be in open because it is fun. If people dont want to play in open they do not have to. It does come with risks but they are not insurmountable. Considering there are many private groups that are welcoming and other alternatives I do not think that anyone is missing out.

As someone who likes to trade in open, I think that interdiction is a large part of the game. It is the incentive to use a medium ship vs a large ship. Less risk less reward. Just like trading a 8c cargo rack for 8c prismatics.

Other MMO games have systems in place that allow the player to avoid PvP action. This is an approach for an immersive solution for Elite Dangerous. You can avoid getting interdicted by installing a device. That will cost you a slot (or 2 actually, if the AID would require a shield generator to be present, which I'd recommend). That means increased weight, reduced cargo capacity and/or outfitting options, so the solution does not come without a price tag (and I'm not just talking CR here).

I still dont understand what the purpose of this device is. just so you can fly through a system in open? I mean you can avoid player interdiction by going to solo or PG.

The AID could replace the current "escape vector" minigame, that I honestly find neither entertaining nor immersive (where does the interdicting ship vanish to when I successfully avoid the interdiction?).

I counter that with this - I myself remember getting interdicted for the first time. I have seen it happen on many live stream's. It is a part of the immersive experience in my subjective opinion and based on observation.

 

[[VR] Zakk]

I still dont understand what the purpose of this device is.

I'd say that's because you struggle with understanding that there may be other players who'd prefer to play the game differently than you do. No offense intended.

As I wrote before, there are dozens of different roles you can take in ED. And pretty much all of them offer ways to interact with other human players. But you cannot play in Open if you don't want to engage in PvP combat. You're forced into Solo or private groups.

That reduces the chances to interact with others not just for these players, but for everybody.

The only part of your post I agree with: people WANT to be in open because it is fun. But as a matter of fact, a lot of people who'd want to be in Open play in Solo, because they may not be able to afford a high-end ship yet, or have no interest in hyper-engineering it. Both of which is a must if you want to play in Open.

You like that part of the game. So do I. But many don't.

What do you win by forcing these people into Solo or Private Groups? As long as they are there, they are not available for your target practice.

If there was a way to get these players back into Open, the galaxy might feel a little less empty. There would be more random encounters, more options for a co-op playstyle and less frustration potential for new players.

And you would not lose a single potential target. Because those who embrace the interdiction challenge will continue to do so. So why the attitude as if somebody was taking anything away from you?

ED is more than a space combat simulator, even from an MMO point of view. So why force people to combat? The game doesn't force you to go mining, exploring or trading either, if you want to play in Open.

 

[Drelthar]

Nope