[Suggestion]How to fix Interdiction Submitting-> Instantly jumping.

[Starlear]

As an avid bounty hunter, even in a very fast ship, it is very difficult to consistently trap someone when they can jump away after submitting. The problem is it just leads to stalemates over and over due to the fact your shields instantly recharge when entering supercruise.

For interdiction to matter, it needs to lock someone down, even if they submit. Submission as it stands now is not submission, it is stating your intention to escape. Submitting should imply actual submission. As such I would like to propose a few changes to help with this:

- When Submitting, your thrusters overheat due to the sudden rapid deceleration from supercruise. Because of this, you are rendered unable to boost for 2 minutes. If you remain at 0% throttle after submitting for 30s, your engines rapidly cool and you can boost normally again. This lets you choose between submittjng and opting to fight, or genuinely submitting and being able to attempt escape sooner (but being more helpless before that).

- When submitting, your FSD goes offline for half the duration it would go offline if you had lost the interdiction fight. If your aggressor jumps away or you can put 3km between you, you immediately regain FSD functionality.

- The duration you are stuck with your aggressor should be increased if your aggressor has a higher class/rating FSD interdictor. Interdictors should have an "optimal target mass" stat which, if your target is under this mass, you get the full escape prevention. You would need to invest in better interdictors to lock down bigger ships. A class 1E interdictor that snags a laden Type-9 should not keep it in the area very long - it should be able to immediately jjmp out if it submits, and the aggressor (who has failed the mass differential check via his interdictor targeting a ship too heavy for it to work properly) should be stuck with a FSD on cooldown. This means that bigger ships require more investment from the pirate/hunter to interdict and successfully keep in place.

These changes would do a few things:

Interdiction becomes meaningful. You have a reason to fight the interdiction, because submitting or losing would ensure you were at the aggressor's mercy as it should.

Aggressors need to ensure they use a good enough FSD interdictor for the ship they are trying to stop. A large target could still submit and fight, if they wanted, but they would be able to escape the same as they currently can if they submit to an inferiorly-equipped aggressor.

There is a reason to use higher class/higher rated interdictors. This by proxy makes larger ships with more and higher class internal slots be potentially better at interdicting than smaller craft. It also opens up a dedicated interdiction ship role for pirate or bounty hunter wings. Having to choose between a good interdictor and something else like shield cells is an interesting and meaningful choice. As it stands right now there is no real reason to want anything bigger than a class 1 interdictor. This should also cut down on the number of player Anacondas being interdicted by npc sidewinders .

 

[Magic Man]

Submitting is the current best anti-interdiction technique. The evasive flight pits skill against skill which is not ideal for newer players. There should be an equal chance for those interdicted to get away in an encounter via the equivalent of the one click solution a bounty hunter uses to interdict in the first place..

You want all ships you interdict to be basically sitting targets for you. Perhaps anti-interdiction weapons that could take out your interdictor if you pick on the wrong ship would be an idea.

 

[Starlear]

The evasive fight should be the way you escape an interdiction. Avoiding the entire interdiction mechanic by submitting and immediately jumping is a problem.

I don't want all ships that are interdicted to be sitting ducks, I want submission to mean submission, rather than "bye, sorry interdiction doesn't matter".

Losing the game should be the harshest penalty. Submitting should be equally harsh but for a shorter time.

Finally, the suggestion about ship mass differential would overall make the interdiction game easier compared to now - most of the juicy targets are larger ships, so smaller ships would need to compromise to fit a better interdictor and be able to lock them down at all.

 

[Darth Ender]

increasing fsd cooldown for all parties when interdiction is involved is all you really need. A trader setup to run will still be able to assuming they're faster than their attacker. Otherwise a serious decision would need to be made to survive/deal with the given situation since they can no longer depend on a guaranteed way out unscathed.

The way someone who doesn't want to deal with the ship who interdicted you is to beat the interdiction mini-game, not submit and get right back into sc in 5 seconds.

 

[Tryst]

The way someone who doesn't want to deal with the ship who interdicted you is to beat the interdiction mini-game, not submit and get right back into sc in 5 seconds.

The big problem with that is, most pirates will interdict big lumbering ships that have no hope of winning the interdiction game due to lack of agility compared to a fighter ship that can stay on your tail easily. Making it too difficult to escape would make it grossly unfair on trading and other very low agility ships who have little or no hope of winning the interdiction mini game. This is the reason they submit straight away now, not only can they get back into SC quicker but they don't incur massive damage since they will undoubtedly lose the interdiction game. Making it harder to get back into SC again after submitting means the less agile ship is screwed if they play the interdiction game and lose and still screwed if they don't.

The only real way to do it is for both of you to play the same interdiction game, not have the attacker only needing to stay on their prey's tail. The minigame for each should then be scaled according to their own ships agility so both players have an equal chance of winning or losing regardless of the agility of their ship compared to the other one.

 

[RallyPoint]

Submitting is the current best anti-interdiction technique. The evasive flight pits skill against skill which is not ideal for newer players. There should be an equal chance for those interdicted to get away in an encounter via the equivalent of the one click solution a bounty hunter uses to interdict in the first place..

You want all ships you interdict to be basically sitting targets for you. Perhaps anti-interdiction weapons that could take out your interdictor if you pick on the wrong ship would be an idea.

No what he's saying is if you choose to submit... you should be submissive. If that's NOT the intent the devs had in mind with submitting to an interdiction then they need to change the name because that's what the name implies.

Right now there's no point to even try to escape. You have 10x better chance escaping by "submitting" and running. That's not submitting that's evading and attempting to escape.

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

The big problem with that is, most pirates will interdict big lumbering ships that have no hope of winning the interdiction game due to lack of agility compared to a fighter ship that can stay on your tail easily. Making it too difficult to escape would make it grossly unfair on trading and other very low agility ships who have little or no hope of winning the interdiction mini game. This is the reason they submit straight away now, not only can they get back into SC quicker but they don't incur massive damage since they will undoubtedly lose the interdiction game. Making it harder to get back into SC again after submitting means the less agile ship is screwed if they play the interdiction game and lose and still screwed if they don't.

The only real way to do it is for both of you to play the same interdiction game, not have the attacker only needing to stay on their prey's tail. The minigame for each should then be scaled according to their own ships agility so both players have an equal chance of winning or losing regardless of the agility of their ship compared to the other one.

Agreed; I think this would be a good improvement.

 

[CMDR Hagglebeard]

One more thing, and I have a thread somewhere in the suggestions for this: Cargo Canister Variations. There is no point whatsoever for a Clipper pilot, for example, to stop a Type 9 rather than a Type 6. You can't scoop a hundred tons of cargo before half of it loses HP and explodes, but if canisters were to come in different sizes (Say, 1/4th the size of the rack they're placed in), it would make bigger ships not only more viable, but REQUIRED to attack larger trade ships. Lets say a cobra has 32t of cargo space, 2 16t racks, and he somehow manages to rob a clipper which drops 4 x 32t cargo. The Cobra can't pick any of that up because he only has 16t racks, and unless he wants to get out and saw the canissters in half, he can't fit any of them into his 16t racks.

I really want to see both your ideas and this in the game.

 

[Starlear]

Making it harder to get back into SC again after submitting means the less agile ship is screwed if they play the interdiction game and lose and still screwed if they don't.

The only real way to do it is for both of you to play the same interdiction game, not have the attacker only needing to stay on their prey's tail. The minigame for each should then be scaled according to their own ships agility so both players have an equal chance of winning or losing regardless of the agility of their ship compared to the other one.

This has no bearing on my suggestion, which stated that the interdiction minigame would scale towards being easier and having lockdown time vary based on the mass of your ship.

A sidewinder would have a very difficult time successfully interdicting a T9, and if it succeeded, the T9 would just be able to jump out like it can now.

The minigame difficulty would at a base level skew toward being easier for the heavier ship (a big ship has more momentum and is harder to stop. A small ship sould be more easily stopped by a larger one), with the difference being that a smaller ship can minimize this disadvantage to a degree by fitting a larger and higher rated interdiction device.

Another upgrade could be a "frame shift stabilizer", which would be an anti interdictor - if you are interdicted by an interdictor that is less effective than your stabilizer, you auto - win the interdiction game after a timer. This means that if you can hold off your attacker ( not necessarily win, but fight well enough to keep him from winning before the timer is up) you can escape.

 

[Argyris]

@Starlear

Good ideas well thought through. +1

 

[Tryst]

The minigame difficulty would at a base level skew toward being easier for the heavier ship (a big ship has more momentum and is harder to stop. A small ship sould be more easily stopped by a larger one), with the difference being that a smaller ship can minimize this disadvantage to a degree by fitting a larger and higher rated interdiction device.

Another upgrade could be a "frame shift stabilizer", which would be an anti interdictor - if you are interdicted by an interdictor that is less effective than your stabilizer, you auto - win the interdiction game after a timer. This means that if you can hold off your attacker ( not necessarily win, but fight well enough to keep him from winning before the timer is up) you can escape.

Great in theory but then we're back to who has the bigger gun. It would make it a prerequisite that all traders fit the biggest stabiliser they can while all fighters fit the biggest interdictor they can. This is a "must have" piece of equipment that would be no different to fitting a shield. It would hurt fighters a lot less because they already have an interdiction module, if they were interdicting traders mostly, they would relinquish the bigger shield booster and swap it for a smaller one so they could fit a bigger interdiction device. Traders would have to give up a cargo slot that could seriously hurt their profits and make many ships completely unprofitable. Unless you are speaking of using utility slots of course but then, like A class modules, everyone would fit the biggest and most expensive as standard.

I would prefer to see the chance played out by the mechanics than introduce, what would become essential items into the game. By doing this, you can make the FSD cooldown timer the same whether you submit or not but it does give the big T7 or T9 with practically no agility at all, a better chance to win the mini game.

 

[Magic Man]

The main trouble with the interdiction mechanic is that it's purely down to the choice of the commander doing the interdicting.

It's a bit like a cold call ringing you up at night. It's not your choice, it's theirs, they have no idea what you are currently doing and it's damn rude and a pain in the rear end.

Interdiction puts the game needs and choice of the interdictor above those of the one he/she is interdicting. There needs to be some sort of mechanic on the other side, something the victim can do to say "sod off" in a way or even something to turn the choice the other way.

I.e. perhaps a one off anti-interdiction weapon - sort of equivalent purpose of the old energy bomb. Someone starts to interdict you, you have the option to charge it (it charges on the reverse energy of the interdictor so can only be activated when being interdicted and will deactivate if the interdiction is called off) and fire it off before they complete - the weapon seriously damages or even destroys their interdictor. From the interdictors point of view, they can see that their victim is equipped and charging and must decide whether to continue with the interdiction attempt and face losing their device or backing off and letting the victim go.

There has to be something that takes the whole choice of the interdiction mechanic away from the sole preference of the hunter.

 

[RallyPoint]

I can understand your sentiment; it's too one-sided right now. Too much advantage is given to the one doing the interdicting. So if somehow the current method of submit > run gets effectively "fixed" then people will be assuming a LOT more risk.

However I can't get on board with a means of totally avoiding an interdiction. Why even have them then? Sure you have to use a module slot but so what? Anyone who wants to totally avoid getting interdicted can do it.

To me the real solution was already brought up. The playing field needs to be leveled. Instead of the interdictor getting an advantage it should be an a fair struggle between the two. Also something needs to be done so that ships with crappy maneuverability can still have a fair chance and level playing field to try and evade an interdiction. To me this builds on great interactive gameplay. Being able to just say "sod off" breaks down interaction between players.

 

[Defacto]

I think that these ideas are a bit too gamey and arbitrary. Thrusters overheat? No, they aren't. Might aswell say: We don't want you to boost because in this situation we think it will make the game bad.
I think that a better way would simpl be to increase the FSD cooldown time from interdiction in general.

Also: Make security forces competent.
We players can pretty much pirate around freely in Lave. That is ridicilous. Lave isn't an anarchy or a small frontier system, it's a system of several billion people.

The main trouble with the interdiction mechanic is that it's purely down to the choice of the commander doing the interdicting.

It's a bit like a cold call ringing you up at night. It's not your choice, it's theirs, they have no idea what you are currently doing and it's damn rude and a pain in the rear end.

Interdiction puts the game needs and choice of the interdictor above those of the one he/she is interdicting. There needs to be some sort of mechanic on the other side, something the victim can do to say "sod off" in a way or even something to turn the choice the other way.

I.e. perhaps a one off anti-interdiction weapon - sort of equivalent purpose of the old energy bomb. Someone starts to interdict you, you have the option to charge it (it charges on the reverse energy of the interdictor so can only be activated when being interdicted and will deactivate if the interdiction is called off) and fire it off before they complete - the weapon seriously damages or even destroys their interdictor. From the interdictors point of view, they can see that their victim is equipped and charging and must decide whether to continue with the interdiction attempt and face losing their device or backing off and letting the victim go.

There has to be something that takes the whole choice of the interdiction mechanic away from the sole preference of the hunter.

You can avoid interdiction by using various escape tactics such as emergency drops, hyperspace jumps and manuevers to keep the interdictor off your tail.
You can defeat the interdictor and evade the interdiction.
Or, you can submit and then kill the interdictor. I struggle to think of something that would be more like saying ''sod off'' to a would-be pirate.

But no, piracy isn't your choice, it's theirs. I think this is how pretty much all hostile acts, real world and in-game works. I don't see the problem with that. I agree that it is rude, but shouldn't it be?

 

[Magic Man]

Trouble is the mechanic is too much like the school bully at the moment. The interdictor is the one who chooses - he decides based on what ship he is facing. I.e. he gets to choose to pick on the little guy. There needs to be an element of risk to his choice.

Perhaps he shouldn't be able to see what the 'little guy' is flying - perhaps the scanners can't identify ship type in SC. So he has to take the gamble of what he is hitting on? Could be a little guy, could be a fully armed, battle hardened Anaconda etc.

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

You can avoid interdiction by using various escape tactics such as emergency drops, hyperspace jumps and manuevers to keep the interdictor off your tail.

The OP want to remove the submit mechanic.

You can defeat the interdictor and evade the interdiction.

Or, you can submit and then kill the interdictor. I struggle to think of something that would be more like saying ''sod off'' to a would-be pirate.

But the interdictor gets to choose the victim, he chooses based on the fact that he thinks he has the better equipped ship. The victim is always at the disadvantage.

 

[Defacto]

Trouble is the mechanic is too much like the school bully at the moment. The interdictor is the one who chooses - he decides based on what ship he is facing. I.e. he gets to choose to pick on the little guy. There needs to be an element of risk to his choice.

Perhaps he shouldn't be able to see what the 'little guy' is flying - perhaps the scanners can't identify ship type in SC. So he has to take the gamble of what he is hitting on? Could be a little guy, could be a fully armed, battle hardened Anaconda etc.

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


The OP want to remove the submit mechanic.



But the interdictor gets to choose the victim, he chooses based on the fact that he thinks he has the better equipped ship. The victim is always at the disadvantage.

The OP wants to remove the submit mechanic? I don't see that, and I don't see what that hs to do with the bit of my post that you quoted.
The interdictor choosing victims: Yes he does. The bully: good analogy. I don't see the problem? You can make the fight more fair if you want. Or, you can maximize cargo space. It is your choice.
If I'm in an Unarmed unshielded Type 7 alone, full of rares, I fly into an anarchy, and a pirate interdicts me, then no, in that case I don't think there should be any element of risk in the pirate's ''choice'' except possibly the risk that some other pirate also has noticed my fat merchant ship and is also zeroing in on me. I don't think there needs to be an element of risk at all, not in how the mechanic itself functions.

Why would the pirate attack the little guy? For four tonnes of grain?

 

[Starlear]

I don't want to remove the submit mechanic, I want submitting to bypass the interdiction fsd cooldown, boosting, and immediatdly jumping to go away. I want choosing to "give up" and give in to the interdiction to mean you are giving in - to either put up a fight, or to meet demands, not that you are bypassing a mechanic. FD have already stated they consider this a problem, so I was simply suggesting what I feel is a balanced way to handle it.

Basically I want submitting to mean you submit, not to mean you drop out of SC for 5s and then jump/boost away with no penalty.

 

[Lithari]

The evasive fight should be the way you escape an interdiction. Avoiding the entire interdiction mechanic by submitting and immediately jumping is a problem.

I don't want all ships that are interdicted to be sitting ducks, I want submission to mean submission, rather than "bye, sorry interdiction doesn't matter".

Losing the game should be the harshest penalty. Submitting should be equally harsh but for a shorter time.

Finally, the suggestion about ship mass differential would overall make the interdiction game easier compared to now - most of the juicy targets are larger ships, so smaller ships would need to compromise to fit a better interdictor and be able to lock them down at all.

I have to say, escaping an interdiction is harder then actually fighting the bounty hunter or pirate....AI or player, sure, i tend to lose, but atleast i have a fighting chance, while the interdiction part is just stupid, i never escape from it, it requires impossible turns, i would like to suggest that instead of a interdiction thingy, you have a special scanning tool like the discover scanner, you use it to cut out the target's FSD for 60secs, but to counter that, you have a device that you need to activate in the event that a player or AI is trying to cut out your FSD, once both are activated, then there is a 50-50 chance that it will go either way.

If you succed in cutting out the FSD, its offline for 60secs (ie. a cooldown of 60secs), aswell as the anti-FSD device and you have that time to do whatever it is you need to do and they have 60 seconds to stay alive or to take you out and if the Anti-FSD device fails, the ship keeps going and the Anti-FSD device is disabled for 60 seconds.

 

[Argyris]

I have to say, escaping an interdiction is harder then actually fighting the bounty hunter or pirate....AI or player, sure, i tend to lose, but atleast i have a fighting chance, while the interdiction part is just stupid, i never escape from it, it requires impossible turns[...]

Let me take a guess here: You're using the mouse for flight controls? Try it with a flight stick and with a bit of practice you'll see that escaping is actually quite easy, at least as long as it's an NPC trying to catch you.

[...] i would like to suggest that instead of a interdiction thingy, you have a special scanning tool like the discover scanner, you use it to cut out the target's FSD for 60secs, but to counter that, you have a device that you need to activate in the event that a player or AI is trying to cut out your FSD, once both are activated, then there is a 50-50 chance that it will go either way.

If you succed in cutting out the FSD, its offline for 60secs (ie. a cooldown of 60secs), aswell as the anti-FSD device and you have that time to do whatever it is you need to do and they have 60 seconds to stay alive or to take you out and if the Anti-FSD device fails, the ship keeps going and the Anti-FSD device is disabled for 60 seconds.

No, thx!

 

[Nyres]

Honeslty Inderection already favors the agressor enough as it is, also some of these changes would hurt solo players even more as 9/10 the enemy auto attacks. Its a frustrating prospect for explorers who have no way to defend themselves and might not even have a cargo hold or bounty on them. They should probably work on balancing the Inderection minigame first and not making it a series of impossible turns then look at the submitting problem. Because if they change the current summiting escape aviablity without lessening the punishments for lossing the mini game will make even more favorable to the iderector. It would be like nailing someone's foot to the floor while a bully is beating them up. I'm also in favor of a module that assits in the minigame for the defendor, not an auto win but something that helps you with insane escape icon turns.

 

[Deipfryde]

I don't want to remove the submit mechanic, I want submitting to bypass the interdiction fsd cooldown, boosting, and immediatdly jumping to go away. I want choosing to "give up" and give in to the interdiction to mean you are giving in - to either put up a fight, or to meet demands, not that you are bypassing a mechanic. FD have already stated they consider this a problem, so I was simply suggesting what I feel is a balanced way to handle it.

So how does the game know whether you're submitting because you "give up" or if you're submitting to punish whoever had the balls to interdict you?

I do get what you're saying, I just don't think the answer is as easy to balance as you think, otherwise they'd have done it already. For what it's worth, my cargo ships have enough shield capacity to withstand just about anything in the time it takes me to escape, even with the extended cooldown from a failed evasion. So there are things in place already that would still leave the would-be pirate with an empty purse.