"What's in it for the trader?" - Dumbest question ever?

[frostypaw]

So, if the game shouldn't be defined by its trader-pirate backbone, THEN WHAT?

Exploration, missions, the storyline, other players - many of us find plenty to do because we didn't just want Eve in first person perspective and don't want to be involved in the huge overarching organisational structures you're saying are so important.

 

[Ezren]

Bounty hunters are automatically in the equation. They are the natural allies of the traders.



It's because the game is broken on a fundamental level. They are wasting time with crap like engineers instead of fleshing out the pirate-trader-bounty hunter ecosystem.



Pirates want to achieve wealth and fame by cracking trade routes, watching out for undefended cargo haulers carrying the gold, traders want to get the riches by establishing the best and most lucrative trades.

Only this dynamic can achieve the dynamism the game needs: Traders upping up their defense, the pirates in turn react by trying to sneak past them, how to crack the pirate convoy configuration the traders are now using etc. etc.

Of course, the tools to make all this possible ARE NOT THERE: I KNOW!

That's a HUGE reason for all the one-inch-deep problems. For all the cries of boredom, meaninglessness and "what to do". The game gets a lot of flack on all its main forums (this, reddit, steam) if you haven't noticed it already. There's a good reason for that.

So, if the game shouldn't be defined by its trader-pirate backbone, THEN WHAT?

Just what's left? The sorry "BGS"? The "ten planet textures" exploration?

Let me know when you're back from your vacation away from reality. In the meantime, here are a few of the issues you continue to ignore:

No "win" scenario for traders in a trader vs pirate interaction.
No "lose" scenario for pirates.
No meaningful bounties on player pirates to actually involve Bounty Hunters in the way you've insisted they're involved.
Exploration exists.
Community Goals exist.
PvP is not the same as PvE.

 

[boringnick]

Exploration

Really?

I could write a game within a few days that offers the same gameplay. You watch jpegs of stars and then press a button to move to the next picture.

missions, the storyline

You're seriously grasping at straws here. The storyline are galnet articles which have pretty much no outcome on the actual stuff you do in-game. And the missions are one of the main sources for the dissatisfaction on the forums.

other players

Other than pew pew at RES, What co-op content is there?

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

Let me know when you're back from your vacation away from reality. In the meantime, here are a few of the issues you continue to ignore:

No "win" scenario for traders in a trader vs pirate interaction.

That's a ridiculous argument. It's like saying there is no win scenario on a C&C map - you can see the cutscenes on youtube anyway! The "game" is the "win".

No "lose" scenario for pirates.

Eh, of course. Bounty hunters on their tail, they can get owned by attacking a heavily defended convoy, attacked on sight in the core systems, relegated to the lawless systems where they are prey to more powerful pirates and so on. I am aware that most this stuff is not implemented in this game, which is a huge shame.

 

[Darrett]

Let me know when you're back from your vacation away from reality. In the meantime, here are a few of the issues you continue to ignore:No "win" scenario for traders in a trader vs pirate interaction.No "lose" scenario for pirates.No meaningful bounties on player pirates to actually involve Bounty Hunters in the way you've insisted they're involved.Exploration exists.Community Goals exist.PvP is not the same as PvE.

1. The win scenario is that traders make it to their destination and sell their goods. The problem is that it's currently too easy to do so in Solo/PG, as NPC pirates are not plentiful or aggressive enough, and lack the tools necessary to prevent targets from fleeing.

2. The lose scenario for a pirate would be having the trader's wing or system authority destroy them. If there was an addition of a module that served as a future equivalent to the money bag paint bomb (marked goods as illegal after X number of jumps to supercruise, or gives a hidden flag that gives you a bounty on scan), it would at least give traders a bit more of an ability to stick it to the pirate.

3. Agreed, especially if the "pirate" destroys the target, there should be sizable bounties. I'd like it if there were bounties placed for robbery based on the goods value, but I don't see a way to make that work.

4. Yes.

5. Yes.

6. Yes.

 

[DrakeAurum]

2. The lose scenario for a pirate would be having the trader's wing or system authority destroy them. If there was an addition of a module that served as a future equivalent to the money bag paint bomb (marked goods as illegal after X number of jumps to supercruise, or gives a hidden flag that gives you a bounty on scan), it would at least give traders a bit more of an ability to stick it to the pirate.

The problem is that the current crime and punishment system consists essentially of the death penalty, in a game-world in which players never actually die.

If a pirate loses his ship while fighting a trader or a bounty hunter, all he loses is the 5% rebuy cost. It's barely even a slap on the wrist. If a trader loses his ship whilst on a high-value trading run, he loses the same 5%, plus the cost of all the cargo he invested in, which could well be the majority of his liquid assets. Even if everybody dies, it's still the trader who comes off the worst.

 

[Ezren]

Really?

I could write a game within a few days that offers the same gameplay. You watch jpegs of stars and then press a button to move to the next picture.

It's pretty clear you have no interest in having a thoughtful discussion, or a constructive one.

 

[happyfunball]

Actually, yes, I think there should't be much difference between NPC and players in an open game world like this.

Make the pirates a lot tougher, and then you would need pretty much the same systems and "meta" against them like against players.

In an open world where every ship is on equal footing, at least in theory (unlike the obvious distinction between super-weak mass NPCs and the heroes in a themepark MMO), PVP vs PVE should not carry the same distinction as in a "hero" MMO.

If you're proposing FD beef up the NPCs to be close to humans, then I agree 100%. Then the pirates can pirate all the NPCs they want.

 

[frostypaw]

Really?

I could write a game within a few days that offers the same gameplay. You watch jpegs of stars and then press a button to move to the next picture.

Crack on then buddy, put your money where your mouth is.

 

[boringnick]

Crack on then buddy, put your money where your mouth is.

Do you think I won't be able to collect jpegs of celestial objects and cycle through them?

PSEUDOCODE:

ImageArray Stars = new ImageArray("C:\SpaceyPictures")

OnKeyPress()
{

SpaceImage = Stars(RndNumber)

SpaceImage.Show()

SpaceExplorerRank++

}

 

[WeirdWizard]

Pirates want to achieve wealth and fame by cracking trade routes, watching out for undefended cargo haulers carrying the gold, traders want to get the riches by establishing the best and most lucrative trades.

Only this dynamic can achieve the dynamism the game needs: Traders upping up their defense, the pirates in turn react by trying to sneak past them, how to crack the pirate convoy configuration the traders are now using etc. etc.

The problem here is the the game you describe is not this game. You are in essentially the same position I was but on the opposite side. I wanted a deep engaging single play game where I could have my own galaxy to play in. Sadly for me that's not what Elite is. Likewise you want a aan MMO something like Darkfall or Ultima online only with spaceships, the dream of the open player vs player full loot universe. Brigands praying on honest folks. Cat and mouse. fox and hound, etc. Of course as of yet noone has been able to make a game like that which could actually hold onto the honest folk for various complex reasons.

Regardless as I said that's not Elite Dangerous. For whatever reason they've chosen to try to tread this middleground between single play and mmo which is really mostly about the shared curated galaxy and the metagames that take place within it. Powerplay, the BGS, player factions, galnet fanfic, exploration discovery tagging. The game you want could be great if anyone can figure out a way to make it work but it won't be Frontier. Likewise the game I really want will be amazing too I hope when someone gets around to making it. In the meantime the choice is play ED for the game it is or don't. So far since launch I've been falling mostly into the latter camp though I may pop back to see if the missions really have been improved or not in the next update.

 

[boringnick]

The problem here is the the game you describe is not this game. You are in essentially the same position I was but on the opposite side. I wanted a deep engaging single play game where I could have my own galaxy to play in. Sadly for me that's not what Elite is. Likewise you want a aan MMO something like Darkfall or Ultima online only with spaceships, the dream of the open player vs player full loot universe. Brigands praying on honest folks. Cat and mouse. fox and hound, etc. Of course as of yet noone has been able to make a game like that which could actually hold onto the honest folk for various complex reasons.

Regardless as I said that's not Elite Dangerous. For whatever reason they've chosen to try to tread this middleground between single play and mmo which is really mostly about the shared curated galaxy and the metagames that take place within it. Powerplay, the BGS, player factions, galnet fanfic, exploration discovery tagging. The game you want could be great if anyone can figure out a way to make it work but it won't be Frontier. Likewise the game I really want will be amazing too I hope when someone gets around to making it. In the meantime the choice is play ED for the game it is or don't. So far since launch I've been falling mostly into the latter camp though I may pop back to see if the missions really have been improved or not in the next update.

Exactly WeirdWizard. This game is a jack of all trades, master of none.

I actually asked already in another thread, why they went the online route at all. It should have been single player from the start, given how lousy the online part is and the few visible effects of the bgs (offline would have allowed modding etc.)

The game will forever linger in this controversial state given their directionless and trying to cater to everybody without even trying to master a single task fully.

 

[Ian Doncaster]

That's the job of the game designer to balance the professions.

Can't practically be done in a pure PvP environment. Works in PvE because the NPCs don't have to worry about their budgets, but can't work in PvP. The whole trader/pirate/hunter economy is not actually realistic, so it's impossible to balance it.

Basically:
- if trade profit margins are small, even a tiny chance of pirate success means the traders make a loss overall [this is currently true]
- if trade profit margins are large, pirates are required to successfully steal significant goods from the traders to stop trading being excessively profitable (to the point where the pirates would make far more money from honest trading anyway)

- if pirates can easily intercept traders, then hunters can easily intercept pirates, and will then easily destroy the pirate (more easily than a pirate will steal from a trader)
- if pirates can't easily intercept traders, then hunters can't easily intercept pirates, and can't make money [this is currently true]

- to prevent "free money" exploits, the destruction of a pirate by a hunter must be a net cost of credits: the pirate's expenses from being destroyed must be more than the hunter's fee. [this is currently true]
- to prevent economic death spirals, interactions must be either zero-sum or positive-sum (balancing professions by ensuring that frequent resetting of your save is the only way to keep your credit balance positive is a solution but not a fun game)

- if big ships are more powerful than small ships, credit imbalances between professions get rapidly magnified
- if big ships are not more powerful than small ships, running costs of big ships make them worthless

If you wanted to even get close in Elite, I think you'd need to do something like:
- massively shrink the bubble. One system of each economy+superpower combination, with stations at least 300 Ls from the star, and that's it. Turn every tradelane into an active warzone in supercruise.
- clean ships do not pay rebuy, other ships pay much less than now
- remove all ships bigger than a Cobra III
- make the typical sell price for trade goods several times the buy price.
- remove the stolen goods rules

That would be a completely different game mostly unlike Elite, and one impossible to practically reach from the current state of the game, so it's not even worth considering.

 

[frostypaw]

Do you think I won't be able to collect jpegs of celestial objects and cycle through them?

PSEUDOCODE:

ImageArray Stars = new ImageArray("C:\SpaceyPictures")

OnKeyPress()
{

SpaceImage = Stars(RndNumber)

SpaceImage.Show()

SpaceExplorerRank++

}

Your idea of gameplay is not mine, this game utterly sucked. It was basically a slideshow. I'll stick to Elite - but thanks for trying fella, worthwhile contribution.

 

[boringnick]

If you wanted to even get close in Elite, I think you'd need to do something like:
- massively shrink the bubble. One system of each economy+superpower combination, with stations at least 300 Ls from the star, and that's it. Turn every tradelane into an active warzone in supercruise.
- clean ships do not pay rebuy, other ships pay much less than now
- remove all ships bigger than a Cobra III
- make the typical sell price for trade goods several times the buy price.
- remove the stolen goods rules

That would be a completely different game mostly unlike Elite, and one impossible to practically reach from the current state of the game, so it's not even worth considering.

Well, actually, immediate the predecessors were a lot more like this. The human bubble in FFE was a lot smaller, there was no stolen good rules, the lore implied a cold war situation which could turn hot any moment.

ED was designed to spread everyone far apart with its oversized bubble. I think the main reason were not gameplay considerations, but the P2P architecture (avoid too many large instances).

But whatever. The end result is a game tied to a server, but with almost no meaningful online features in return in a vastly oversized galaxy.

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

Your idea of gameplay is not mine, this game utterly sucked. It was basically a slideshow. I'll stick to Elite - but thanks for trying fella, worthwhile contribution.

Isn't the exploration part just that? At first you might land on a few samey planets, but soon enough your "exploration" consists of jumping, looking at mostly samey looking star, jumping.

Watch picture, press button. Maybe it's even "realistic" on some level, kudos, but strictly gameplay wise it's "press button, see slightly varied texture, press button".

 

[frostypaw]

ED was designed to spread everyone far apart with its oversized bubble. I think the main reason were not gameplay considerations, but the P2P architecture (avoid too many large instances).

The bubble size is calculated. The devs have talked about this several times - have you got any idea how fast humans breed?!?

Isn't the exploration part just that? At first you might land on a few samey planets, but soon enough your "exploration" consists of jumping, looking at mostly samey looking star, jumping.

Watch picture, press button.

No. That's what going somewhere distant at a huge rate of knots or doing WD/NS farming is like perhaps, but that's not exploring. I'm fairly sure the explorers of old didn't sail around and cry "LAND AHOY!!! OH no wait up chaps, it's another beach. Sail away. Oh! Another beach. Onwards nevermind. Damn this exploring lark, might as well show a chap a flickbook of beaches."

 

[Derath]

The bubble size is calculated. The devs have talked about this several times - have you got any idea how fast humans breed?!?

No. That's what going somewhere distant at a huge rate of knots or doing WD/NS farming is like perhaps, but that's not exploring. I'm fairly sure the explorers of old didn't sail around and cry "LAND AHOY!!! OH no wait up chaps, it's another beach. Sail away. Oh! Another beach. Onwards nevermind. Damn this exploring lark, might as well show a chap a flickbook of beaches."

They might well have done if the land they got to was identical to the one they left

 

[boringnick]

The bubble size is calculated. The devs have talked about this several times - have you got any idea how fast humans breed?!?

No one cares? I was talking about it strictly from a gameplay consideration.

Now one might argue whether a large bubble is good or bad for gameplay, but "humans breeding" is not an argument in this. Speaking of: ED obviously plays in the FFE universe, yet it was far less densely populated. So, either the birth control worked a bit too well previously or everyone burned their condoms in the last fifty years.

Lore-wise, a less populated area works better. It's quite unlikely that powers like the empire and the federation would allow so much unrestricted expansion - it weakens their base. YET, if unrestricted expansion is allowed, it just begs the question why a group of billionaire players cannot establish a base on a far away planet in this galaxy full of tiny outposts etc etc. which is a big no no in ED.

See, lore stuff and logic cuts both ways.

 

[frostypaw]

No one cares? I was talking about it strictly from a gameplay consideration.

You do. You just stated it was made that size because of game tech limitations.

You're just pulling nonsense out of your hat mate - one point gets countered and you make something else up even if it's yet weaker broth than before. Not worth the time.

 

[Riverside]

Well needless to say I voted no

Lots of good thought provoking stuff on this thread, thanks for starting it boringnick

 

[boringnick]

You do. You just stated it was made that size because of game tech limitations.

Yeah, you're right on this, sorry.

What I meant was that from a gameplay consideration a smaller bubble would have been better, but they made it large probably due game tech limitations.