Revert no fire zone / drop distances to stations to pre gamma(?) distances and other C + P tweaks

[Rubbernuke]

I treat Elite like a simulation. In aviation we do all we can to minimize risk. If commercial aviation was like elite, nobody would ever get on an airliner. The interdiction mechanic is just bonkers, but you know, game.

So I tolerate the interdictions, I maneuver to make it hard for the pirate to latch on, win the interdiction if caught and rely on arriving close to the starport for its immediate protection.

For me, extending the drop point farther from the station has no appeal.

Fair enough- but it makes for a monotone mission structure if the only way an NPC can intercept you is via interdiction alone. You drop so close to a station you might as well be inside it.

Being a sandbox game, where you blaze your own trail, one should be able to control the level on risk one is exposed to. I'd like the system security levels mean more just for that reason. Again, when assessing and controlling risk, suggesting extending the drop point farther from the station doesn't work for me.

In order to putter about the Milky Way in Elite, one needs to make a living. So, yeah, I haul stuff, mine stuff, taxi people about and do the ultimate puttering of exploration. Which is why I take an interest in suggestions which may impact how I play.

If you fly a sensible ship the main difference with ad hoc cargo running is running from pirates to the safety of the NFZ rather than dropping straight into it. If you fly a shieldless T-9 then thats a gamble (as it should be). To my mind this is the only real way to differentiate the level of police- anarchy and low sec have response times too low (but nearby sec forces by the station with the latter) while high security systems have response times in the 10 second range. If anything it brings station approaches in line with Haz res levels.

My interest is preserving my simple gameplay by not creating more places in Elite where I can get mugged. Which I suspect you may be sympathetic with. The features of Elite I enjoy are the galaxy, station infrastructure, general eye candy and flying around in spaceships.

The problem being there are no places to be mugged with NPC and player piracy re missions and general cargo hauling- you don't need to drop to NAVs, missions and cargo runs are from NFZ > SC > NFZ and thats as far as it goes because that applies to most sec levels. At best you'll see one interdiction- hardly enough to tell the difference between high sec or anarchy.

As long as the game mechanics of A to B hauling and delivering Void Opals isn't changed, I'm good.

Imagine flying 15Km through an average NAV points density and variation of ships to get to a station (which exists partially now, its just players have no reason to fly that way). Anarchy would equate to a compromised NAV with more pirates, with the mix becoming ever more lawful (police as well as BH mercs) as you go through the sec ratings. This could be tailored to population (so outposts have a few ships, Coriolis lots).

 

[[VR] M4st0d0n]

Docking stations is more than half the gameplay loop there is in Elite. How long do you feel everyone should wait outside the no fire zone for the fabled organic pvp piracy to happen? How many collective years should the community wait while boosting forward for emergent gameplay to eventually happen sometimes, only at shinrarta...

And do we need an even easier way to spawncamp instances? I dont know, do some efforts. Throw in at least some kind of minigame.

 

[Rubbernuke]

Docking stations is more than half the gameplay loop there is in Elite. How long do you feel everyone should wait outside the no fire zone for the fabled organic pvp piracy to happen?

In busy places it might- but PvP piracy is one aspect to the idea. Its more about giving NPCs room to actually do something- be it Powerplay NPCs attacking fortifiers, bounty hunters / pirates spawned by your missions, general pirates, police scanning you (for smuggling) and so on.

How many collective years should the community wait while boosting forward for emergent gameplay to eventually happen sometimes, only at shinrarta...

Well, small or medium ships are generally fast enough for the gap not to be 'years'. Which makes sense when flying through anarchic space to a lawless station, its dangerous (if you are holding cargo) so you don't hang about. Large ships have to invest then in better defences, or, stick to policed areas- again, as it should be. These zones then reflect security levels better.

And do we need an even easier way to spawncamp instances? I dont know, do some efforts. Throw in at least some kind of minigame.

Er....unlike now where people sit inside the station and simply wait for speeding commanders, or sit far away with LR munitions? How does having as larger area to traverse through make that any different other than provide an area where actual genuine encounters might happen?

Do we really want another abstracted minigame that detracts from actually flying your ship in a normal way? There are three general areas where players transition through: NAV, SC, station territory. NAVs have largely become redundant, SC is empty (with only one way an NPC can 'get' you via interdiction) and station drops put you instantly within the NFZ. You could make SC full of things and hazards (I like that with myself and many others suggesting ways to fill it up and make it relevant) but the cheapest way (which has several benefits to go with it) is to open drop areas.

 

[[VR] M4st0d0n]

You are just clueless about gravity braking, orienting yourself to the slot and optimizing supercruise pathflights. That's why you basically suggest another waiting queue for spawncamping gameplay to happen.

How challenged must a wing of ganker already be to have difficulties to interdict people on their way to the station? And win a broken minigame? How stacked does the already stupidly unbalanced situation need to be for a presumed emergent gameplay of piracy to happen?

Git gud.

 

[Rubbernuke]

You are just clueless about gravity braking, orienting yourself to the slot and optimizing supercruise pathflights. That's why you basically suggest another waiting queue for spawncamping gameplay to happen.

"You are just clueless about gravity braking, orienting yourself to the slot and optimizing supercruise pathflights."

I'm not talking about any of that- but I'm fully aware of them.

"That's why you basically suggest another waiting queue for spawncamping gameplay to happen."

None of that matters to a ganker for the numerous reasons I just told you. But again:

Gankers like SC because you are on their terms. Why would a ganker bother with the work of chasing you when they can sit inside a station and you collide with them, or use LR weapons to snipe you through the slot? Plus, combat is not some taboo subject.....it actually does happen with people or NPCs wanting to either rob you or kill you. Players can sit anywhere outside a station, or near to it right now- so moving the drop zone changes nothing in reality in regards to ganking as they simply don't care about NFZ rules.

How challenged must a wing of ganker already be to have difficulties to interdict people on their way to the station?

So your 'argument' (or thinly disguised rant) is that because you perceive me as a ganker in a wing that has trouble ganking in SC has cooked up an idea to make ganking easier? Really? Have you even read and thought about what I'm suggesting or are you too busy mopping up the frothy bile you are dribbling over the floor?

And win a broken minigame?

Its easy to win, most likely due to how P2P works. But again, this is not what I am thinking of. The idea is to open one space for NPCs (that makes no difference to gankers anyway) and give FD a way to tone down the repeated interdictions (the sole way an NPC can ever touch you) so we allow NPCs to actually do things.

How stacked does the already stupidly unbalanced situation need to be for a presumed emergent gameplay of piracy to happen?

Well, it means that when I'm in Solo I get more danger from NPC pirates, bounty hunters or mercs out to destroy me. However I think you are too wound up thinking everyone is a ganker to care about wider issues.

Git gud.

Your idiotic rant is misguided. - I'm advocating NPCs getting better.

 

[[VR] M4st0d0n]

The only idiotic thing here is you thinking NPCs interactions will be improved by more timers. Just stick to powerplay suggestions.

 

[Morbad]

I treat Elite like a simulation. In aviation we do all we can to minimize risk. If commercial aviation was like elite, nobody would ever get on an airliner. The interdiction mechanic is just bonkers, but you know, game.

So I tolerate the interdictions, I maneuver to make it hard for the pirate to latch on, win the interdiction if caught and rely on arriving close to the starport for its immediate protection.

For me, extending the drop point farther from the station has no appeal.

Minimizing risk is something better done through gameplay than making sure the game is risk-free to start with.

I also treat ED as a simulation and try to have my CMDR behave rationally, but the game punishes me for this by trivializing such gameplay in favor of easy of use and near-instant gratification, that leaves anyone who knows the the game well enough to depict a competent character, facing no risk at all.

Imagine an aviation simulation where causing your plane to stall or ignoring traffic control had no consequences...that's Elite Dangerous.

Docking stations is more than half the gameplay loop there is in Elite.

Sounds like a damn good argument for it to take long enough for gameplay to happen.

As it stands now, that gameplay loop has 30-60 seconds to play out, which I think is a damn shame. It was vastly more enjoyable when the dropout distance was double and ships were half as fast.

You are just clueless about gravity braking, orienting yourself to the slot and optimizing supercruise pathflights.

I can't speak for Rubbernuke (though I'd be astounded if your assessment was at all accurate), but just to get any silly accusations like that out of the way when I express similar sentiments on this topic:

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X3VVz8dJHi8

 

[Voracity_T]

100% yes.

I'm to tired to come with an overly constructive response right now but it seems pretty damn solid.

Breathe a bit of life into some of the less trodden paths.

 

[Rubbernuke]

The only idiotic thing here is you thinking NPCs interactions will be improved by more timers. Just stick to powerplay suggestions.

'Timers'...as in:

Wings of Powerplay NPCs waiting to ambush fortifiers, so actually posing an obstacle for fortifiers and as a bonus helping filter bots.

General pirates linked to sec and state levels, again pose an obstacle to the unwary

Area for mission NPCs to spawn, so rather than you dropping right into an NFZ and then they do (i.e. a combat NPC dropping into a place they never do combat in) they have room to chase you (making a repetitive mission outcome much more involving)

Place for POIs like illegal traders, material spawns in debris clouds, abandoned cargo (tempting players) to appear in a place thats traversed, distress POIs, visible and logical

A place where players can operate (Powerplay, pirating, bounty hunting)

Make engineering and ship choice more relevant

Its cheap and simple for FD to do

Are you seriously saying none of that is worth a minute (depending on speed- an 800 m/s Courier taking seconds) of flight time where you have to actually think a bit more?

"Just stick to powerplay suggestions."

As an insult 1/10. Git Gud.

 

[Ozric]

Let's stop the personal stuff before it gets too much please.

 

[Misty_Dark]

I am not super happy about the suggestion about entering normal space further away from the station, but there have been a change in NPC pirates that have dropped out on my wake near a station, and that is that they all do a 180 and run away... so that part of the argument I do understand... They used to atleast fire a few shots or follow me for bit...


Overall, I am all for giving the NPC some more brain, and bring back the meaning of the mission rank.... so any mission that is ranked Elite, makes sense that it will not be the walk in the park missions or "easy"... I would like to see 3 ratings actually for each missions
Combat - valuable cargo, wanted passengers, legality of the cargo etc adds to this. And of course the expected level of targets.
Trade - Value of cargo, volume of cargo, how needy are your passenger!
Exploration - sort of a measure about distance, obvious here are the sightseeing mission that is 20k LY should obviously be flagged as Elite here...


This gives us more options to pick missions that matches our own preferences.... If you are out for easy times, with low risk, do not take that 3000T painite transport mission, that is almost an guarantee to attract pirates...

I do think we a missing a category/rank for the "rouge" commanders doing the shadowy stuff like smuggling, assassination etc, so we do need to abuse the other categories for this stuff. And again, this would make it easier avoid problematic missions that involves for example wanted pasengers, problematic cargo etc, etc.

 

[varonica]

I do think we a missing a category/rank for the "rouge" commanders doing the shadowy stuff like smuggling, assassination etc, so we do need to abuse the other categories for this stuff. And again, this would make it easier avoid problematic missions that involves for example wanted pasengers, problematic cargo etc, etc.

I think that's more an argument that the mission system itself needs reworking, I mean why would you find assassination missions, slaving missions and smuggling missions on the same mission board as official government missions. If a mission is the least bit shady or underhand it's acquiring should also be that way, but with the one size fits all mission board we have at the moment that's not workable.

 

[Arkadi]

Entering normal space further away from stations:

Open PvP:
if a system is blockaded it adds another layer to operate. Not only can blockaders interdict blockade-breakers that try to reach a specific station in supercruise but they could also more easyly lay ambush and further blockade in front of the station itself. I can see that this group of players who are advocating for Open-PvE servers, who want a peacefull open play will not be happy about this.

The basic decission of gameplay would still be intact. Does a player want to play cat and mouse in open OR does he just want to deliver his mission without hostile player intarction and go private/solo to reach his goal.

A longer entry way to the station would only benefit blockaders as far as I can see, increasing the potential danger for incoming transports.

I am not sure if open play would really benefit from this longer entry way, since I assume that this room will be abused by "gankers" and could lead to even more frustrating experiences for new and peacful players who insist on playing open AND have a somewhat safe environment.

PVE:
PvE play could vastly be improve for various reasons stated in earlyer posts (NPC contacts in front of stations, more room for PvE pirates to operate, powerplay NPC's ...)

Idea:
People using the supercruise assist will be ejecting close to the station as is now, making the experience more noob-friendly. People navigating manually to the station will get the full experience and drop further away from the station, making it a more challenging experience and enabling more NPC gameplay infront of stations.

 

[Rubbernuke]

Entering normal space further away from stations:

Open PvP:
if a system is blockaded it adds another layer to operate. Not only can blockaders interdict blockade-breakers that try to reach a specific station in supercruise but they could also more easyly lay ambush and further blockade in front of the station itself. I can see that this group of players who are advocating for Open-PvE servers, who want a peacefull open play will not be happy about this.

I am not sure if open play would really benefit from this longer entry way, since I assume that this room will be abused by "gankers" and could lead to even more frustrating experiences for new and peacful players who insist on playing open AND have a somewhat safe environment.

Its much easier to catch out speeding commanders inside the station, or just shoot them with LR weapons (making any extra drop distance not matter). At the very worst you'd have people being chased and shot at 'normally'- i.e. no abuse of speeding limits for example but an actual chase where players can at least partly mitigate against using engineering and better builds.

Plus, since you have dropped normally you then have low wake as an option (unless the opposition carry special munitions). In Open CGs might actually have different outcomes or be more dynamic because of drop distances too leaving PG and Solo modes for them, but with the reduced but still present NPC pirate threat so this idea scales well across modes.

Having spaces like this would also make security more relevant- anarchy and low would be dangerous to unarmed transports, but medium and particularly high sec would have security responses that would spawn useful responses, not to mention the security ships around the station (if any), as well as lawful BH players.

who want a peacefull open play will not be happy about this.

Sadly ED is not a wholly peaceful game- in my view NPCs and danger should actually count for something and that people should assume some opposition during a routine flight and not none. Currently each system acts like any other with sec levels meaningless- the only way to express that difference is flying through real space instances and encountering various lawful or unlawful NPCs. This is compounded by EDs structure with no area that has these situations in 'neutral' play (i.e. take off, SC, land).

A longer entry way to the station would only benefit blockaders as far as I can see, increasing the potential danger for incoming transports.

Thats the suggestion- currently its far too easy for transports in any mode to take off and leave inside a NFZ, fly in SC (the only place to be attacked) and then arrive safe inside the destination NFZ. This leads to interdiction being overused because thats the only option available. It nullifies NPCs and makes for a dull PvE experience.

I superficially like the idea of making SC assist countr, however - skill should reward and not automation, so the manual drop should be closer while the automation further away (since you are doing less). It would then be a tradeoff- drop closer but you have to learn (and the gain being bypassing pirates) or automate but be dropped further away and face opposition.

 

[Arkadi]

Its much easier to catch out speeding commanders inside the station, or just shoot them with LR weapons (making any extra drop distance not matter). [...]

I am not sure on this and don't really want to disagree. Just possibly this: if increased drop out range would be in the game, maybe many more "casual gankers" would be roaming the vicinity of the stations - opposed to now, where only a few special blokes do try to attack players who are inside the NFZ.

Thats the suggestion- currently its far too easy for transports in any mode to take off and leave inside a NFZ, fly in SC (the only place to be attacked) and then arrive safe inside the destination NFZ. This leads to interdiction being overused because thats the only option available. It nullifies NPCs and makes for a dull PvE experience.

I partly agree. It's far to easy in non-PvP modes. But if there is a decent player-run blockade in supercruise I really wouldn't call it easy for transports to get through to theire destination (if sticking to open and having no or only inferior combat wings to theire aid). But right, I to would like to have NPC's to have more impact. And extending the drop out range to stations might help this. So I am all for it to happen. I am just trying to think of all the possible concerns the PvE crowd might have with possibly more PvP combat being forced upon them. That's why I came up with that SC-Assist idea.

I superficially like the idea of making SC assist countr, however - skill should reward and not automation, so the manual drop should be closer while the automation further away (since you are doing less). It would then be a tradeoff- drop closer but you have to learn (and the gain being bypassing pirates) or automate but be dropped further away and face opposition.

When I first thought about this idea, I was thinking like you do. But then really I thought better view it this way: If you are piloting supercruise manually, you use some skill and using skill rewards you with more game-play opportunities.

Using the super-cruise assist is a short-cut for new or lazy players. Give them what they want. If they want to have an easy and save way to go to a station so be it. But they need that module in theire ship for it and they are dependent on the super-cruise assist and can't perform more advanced supercruis maneuvers - so the trade off is, they are a more vulnerable in super-cruise, for having the advantage to being able to drop closer to the station.

Rationally it also makes sense that a computer will be able to calculate a more precise drop-out distance then the human cortex can.

 

[Rubbernuke]

I am not sure on this and don't really want to disagree. Just possibly this: if increased drop out range would be in the game, maybe many more "casual gankers" would be roaming the vicinity of the stations - opposed to now, where only a few special blokes do try to attack players who are inside the NFZ.

Having known a couple of what people term 'gankers' they simply don't care where they attack. A hypothetical extended drop zone is invisible to them as they can be much more mobile in SC and a lot safer as each interdiction is in an isolated area (and not a fixed place like near a station where others can defend). And really we need to make people actually play more to the rules that are survivable and involve gameplay mechanics like better ship builds, basic evasion skills and so on. IMO at least ED is in a feedback loop where PvE trains poor pilots for Open encounters, and that rather making game loops that gently nudge skills higher you wind up with shortcuts that reinforce a skills divide. I do also say that balancing that is difficult- but at some point people will have to really think what mode is best for them. If they are not wanting challenge then they should not be expecting an easy time in open, especially in hot areas.

I partly agree. It's far to easy in non-PvP modes. But if there is a decent player-run blockade in supercruise I really wouldn't call it easy for transports to get through to theire destination (if sticking to open and having no or only inferior combat wings to theire aid). But right, I to would like to have NPC's to have more impact. And extending the drop out range to stations might help this. So I am all for it to happen. I am just trying to think of all the possible concerns the PvE crowd might have with possibly more PvP combat being forced upon them. That's why I came up with that SC-Assist idea.

When I first thought about this idea, I was thinking like you do. But then really I thought better view it this way: If you are piloting supercruise manually, you use some skill and using skill rewards you with more game-play opportunities.

I get what you mean- players are choosing to ignore POIs etc. To me though, thats detrimental to the minute to minute play of ED, and why SC is seen as being empty. People should be hanging on that radar and not watching Netflix.

Using the super-cruise assist is a short-cut for new or lazy players.

I understand this dilemma as well- I have no sympathy for the lazy, but how do you stop overwhelming newcomers with the same measures? One idea I had was that for the lowest ranks of combat each time you are attacked ATR pop up instantly (like they eventually do in c + p), and as you climb the ladder your security assistance is tailed off to nothing once you are competent. EDIT> here is that idea thought out a bit better: https://forums.frontier.co.uk/threa...nks-in-open-mostly-harmless-competent.530464/

Give them what they want. If they want to have an easy and save way to go to a station so be it. But they need that module in theire ship for it and they are dependent on the super-cruise assist and can't perform more advanced supercruis maneuvers - so the trade off is, they are a more vulnerable in super-cruise, for having the advantage to being able to drop closer to the station.

I like the idea of a tradeoff (as in a module slot is taken) but the module needs to be much more demanding in other ways (weight, power etc) to make not having it a valid option.

I also like the concept that you are more vulnerable in SC but get an advantage dropping out- but at the same time I think it does not promote skill acquisition (which IMO is what the game needs to break the low skill cycle. If everyone knew escape concepts a lot of low level ganking would be eliminated).

Rationally it also makes sense that a computer will be able to calculate a more precise drop-out distance then the human cortex can.

For me this is one of those grey areas- take the automated docking module, it gets you there but its slower. Automated SC drops might be the same in that they have built in safeties (because to be frank the automation in ED is a bit dangerous). The other is that having opponents (especially in PP where they could hang around in large numbers) would act as a natural bot filter. If you have automation dropping closer you negate this uncertainty (as from my understanding bots log if shot, and don't react to pirate scans).

 

[Killnine]

Lots of good points being made, for and against.

Personally, I'm mostly for making the station approach longer and riskier. Yes, it should come with other features/changes to balance things. Perhaps there should be a narrow optimal speed & distance bracket, and timing your drop could reduce the distance, or some other manual skill-based way of affecting it? And yes, the main motivation is making NPCs more interesting, but there would be PvP consequences that would need balancing. Adding another window of opportunity for PvP attacks should be offset with more pronounces security levels and more serious and/or lasting consequences for habitual ganking.