Discovery Gaming Community

Jack: The gunboat will have a harder time pirating traders solo if the trader has higher thrust speed than it. You won't even need a CAU then, as testing on the test server proved it takes at least 5 minutes for a gunboat to go through for example bretonian train, and you'll be out of his range in about 1. Also there's the aspect of gunboats generally taking longer to kill traders that have armour and are running toward a base to speed dock, than it takes heavy bombers with their SN/nova/cd combo, or simply bombers with cd/nova/pulse guns.

Temporary OPness of certain gunboats notwithstanding.

And if all else fails anyway, we can always boost trader shield.

---

All in all I understand the grievances of a player who's main char is a trader. You have to deal with a lot of sillyness from pirates and whatnot, and to try and say that pirate griefers don't exist would be just an outright lie. However from the other perspective the privileges that traders currently enjoy allow them to simply carry on with the tidal wave of OORPness that is the constant coming back, the "kill me I don't care" behaviour, the unbelievably ridiculous "I will try until I dock to the base" behaviour and at the very end of it the downright unreasonable idea that a capital ship is somehow prohibited from shooting a trader. And this goes both ways. The ptrans hanging around manhattan lolling at LNS who are prohibited by rules from shooting him while he pirates a noob? Smugglers docking on manhattan because there are no LN fighters in the vicinity and going "lololo" at the LNS there? Or if we want to hit closer to home, the hessian/RR/whatever ptransner in berlin that can't be shot by RNC while he pirates whoever he wants. Yea, same issue.

Remember, this rule change isn't about buffing pirates. The pirates are fine as they are right now, possibly even a bit too "fine". No, this is about the lack of straight forwardness of the rules. We want to simplify the rules and at the same time clear up the stupidity that results from traders being crucial to supporting player bases, but at the same time shooting them being really restricted for completely different reasons. It's just sanctionbait whichever way you put it. It, and the spirit of "revenge by admin" that it brings, has to end.

This thread in a nutshell: remove arbitrary rule protection for traders and compensate it with balance changes to accomplish a similar thing to the current status quo. It's in the same spirit as the tech nerf and the removal of faction tech permission was. I supported that too as it was a vastly better way of doing things.

' Wrote:Let me ask a question to all of you voting no the exception removal: would you be more convinced if transports were rebalanced henceforth so that pirates would also need a group of at least two (rather than single pirate in bomber) to successfully pirate them?

This is just a theoretical question, don't take it as a statement of intent.

I voted yes but as a loner pirate in a VHF and also succesful trader pirate espcaper, I would urge you not to do that.

Now it is ballanced so that a skillful single VHF can pirate a trader. It should stay that way. If pirates are now forced to always be in groups, it will kill the RP of the lonesome highwayman/mugger, and also give lawfuls a hell of a time removing pirates.

' Wrote:This is not a pirate v trader topic. In fact, player stations and sieges (usually military ones) were the main factor that brought this issue to public question.

Please note the first post. Do not turn this into pirate v trader. We're not here to discuss if pirates should do X or Traders should do Y when they encounter each other. All those matters are secondary and can be tweaked afterwards to provide balance and fairness. What is at question here is whether traders deserve and/or need this exception to the rules, and why.

Sorry, but the effect removal of that rule will have on base sieging is absolutely insignificant compared to how it would affect Trader vs Pirate balance.

Therefore, this is what people are most concerned about.

' Wrote:Sorry, but the effect removal of that rule will have on base sieging is absolutely insignificant compared to how it would affect Trader vs Pirate balance.

Therefore, this is what people are most concerned about.

Actually it isn't. Back in 4.84 maybe, not in 4.85/4.86 especially. We now have profitable routes going everywhere for traders to switch to. If they blow up in one system, not only should rules require they pick a new route, but common sense tell them to do the same.

' Wrote:this is about the lack of straight forwardness of the rules. We want to simplify the rules and at the same time clear up the stupidity that results from traders being crucial to supporting player bases, but at the same time shooting them being really restricted for completely different reasons.

They are inextricably linked though. The exception is the balance. If you remove the exception without changing the ability to survive, traders will still lose the fight and will also lose the ability to pass through systems.

The fastest way and most direct way to solve the problem at hand is to add "supplying a base" to the list of prohibited activities, right next to mining.

' Wrote:They are inextricably linked though. The exception is the balance. If you remove the exception without changing the ability to survive, traders will still lose the fight and will also lose the ability to pass through systems.

The fastest way and most direct way to solve the problem at hand is to add "supplying a base" to the list of prohibited activities, right next to mining.

The problem of this approach is: you can see if he's mining, be for the mining gun, be for the ore cargo, but what about the materials for base supplies? they're standard commodities that maybe the trader is going to sell it somewhere else, and, honestly the simple idea of chasing someone to see if he's suplying a base for non-RP reasons is rather mean...

' Wrote:They are inextricably linked though. The exception is the balance. If you remove the exception without changing the ability to survive, traders will still lose the fight and will also lose the ability to pass through systems.

The fastest way and most direct way to solve the problem at hand is to add "supplying a base" to the list of prohibited activities, right next to mining.

Is not paying the pirate worth losing a base? Consequences, people.

I personally don't want the rule removed, but then I'm biased on the fact, because I only fly a transport and I don't want to lose that system to fly in for 4 hours. On the other hand, I understand my bias and it makes perfect sense to me to remove the rule and make a level playing field for all. No matter who dies in PVP, everybody must not enter the system that they died in for 4 hours.

Doesn't really matter that transports can't defend themselves, if we had transports with thousands of cargo space that were also able to defend themselves against all pirates etc, nobody would be playing anything else but those ships and characters.

So really, do whatevz, people will adapt.

Okay, how to buff traders to compensate for the little advantage they got via the 4-h exemption:

Firstly: I dare say I know what I am talking about from the trader perspective, also when it comes to the new version balancing in reality. The number pretty much allows to make a guess on how many hostile encounters I have had.

IMG|Julia:Morrow 3.00:10:39

' Wrote:Jack: The gunboat will have a harder time pirating traders solo if the trader has higher thrust speed than it.

Higher thrust speed for transports? Yes. If the only "win condition" for a transport is "making it to the base", then these transports should have good thrusters.

In case that traders are meant to be animals that run only, higher thrust speed + better shielding + CAU armor (player's choice)

Quote: You won't even need a CAU then, as testing on the test server proved it takes at least 5 minutes for a gunboat to go through for example bretonian train, and you'll be out of his range in about 1. Also there's the aspect of gunboats generally taking longer to kill traders that have armour and are running toward a base to speed dock, than it takes heavy bombers with their SN/nova/cd combo, or simply bombers with cd/nova/pulse guns.

That runs contrary to many encounters on the server. 5 minutes would mean you easily make it to the base. My CAU7 Akegata has almost never made it the ~30 k to the next base on thrust against a Gb. Just saying. Perhaps you tested it without full, chained turret setup, op-gbs only ofc because... heh, what do people use? Never mind, though. It is not that important, as the consequence is still the same: the trader dies. Fast. Before reaching a safe place, even if he almost spent 1 billion on a transport.

Quote:And if all else fails anyway, we can always boost trader shield.

If a transport is intended to have the "run = win" condition, and you really want to strip it of the "death is not so bad" advantage, then shielding is the next reasonable thing that would be done irply. Fast recovering, strong shields that fit a fat, immobile thing worth a billion in equipment, carrying up to 50 million in cargo.

---

Quote:All in all I understand the grievances of a player who's main char is a trader. You have to deal with a lot of sillyness from pirates and whatnot, and to try and say that pirate griefers don't exist would be just an outright lie.

It feels good to see that somebody notices.

Quote: However from the other perspective the privileges that traders currently enjoy allow them to simply carry on with the tidal wave of OORPness that is the constant coming back, the "kill me I don't care" behaviour, the unbelievably ridiculous "I will try until I dock to the base" behaviour and at the very end of it the downright unreasonable idea that a capital ship is somehow prohibited from shooting a trader.

Okay. So oorpness should be reduced. Fine.

Then a trade ship should be extremely hard to kill, as it is the lifeblood of the economy. There is every reason to assume builders and companies that use them would not use something that is so ridiculously weak as they are now (mainly talking about the non-combat transports).

A "we want it logical" would mean that transports look like the vehicles in the Mad Max 2 movie.

Quote: And this goes both ways. The ptrans hanging around manhattan lolling at LNS who are prohibited by rules from shooting him while he pirates a noob? Smugglers docking on manhattan because there are no LN fighters in the vicinity and going "lololo" at the LNS there? Or if we want to hit closer to home, the hessian/RR/whatever ptransner in berlin that can't be shot by RNC while he pirates whoever he wants. Yea, same issue.

So you really want to have "cap ships can shoot transports"?

You really want to make the life of traders miserable, don't you?
Guess what: the percentage of lolwut caps that would love to insta transports with dual mortars is big!

What is so damn hard to just say: bring a bomber? Am I the only one who has > 1 ship of his faction? Dock cap, bring bomber. Kill transport.

The only logical thing then would be: allow Cap piracy.

And then we are in full lolwut Disco.

Quote:Remember, this rule change isn't about buffing pirates.

But it effectively does it. That's what I have been trying to make people see.

Quote: It's just sanctionbait whichever way you put it. It, and the spirit of "revenge by admin" that it brings, has to end.

The waves of complaints and sanctions for traders that do stupid oorp stuff will skyrocket if you place more strain on that group. They are the punching bags that are free to any kind of abuse already.

Taking away the only oorp protection mechanism of thinking: "ah, f**** you lolwut pirate. Blue message me, while I get some coffee. You get nothing for your stupid demand. I shrug, respawn and fly again" will result in a lot of trouble. Trouble that the admins will get to sort.

Traders who do that are not always lolwuts. Not watching the ship blowup but getting something to eat is not lolwut. It's just one possible reaction to a demand that was unacceptable combined with balancing that leaves you without another option.

What you see is a psychological coping mechanism that helps to protect your mind against the frustration of losing in a predetermined situation in which you stand no chance at all.

Guess what? Traders need that, as they: cannot run. cannot fight. cannot survive under fire. And now: lose the last bit of protection they have had?

Expect a lot of trouble if you take away the coping strategy "death doesn't touch me, do whatever you want, little pirate" method.

Quote:This thread in a nutshell: remove arbitrary rule protection for traders and compensate it with balance changes to accomplish a similar thing to the current status quo. It's in the same spirit as the tech nerf and the removal of faction tech permission was. I supported that too as it was a vastly better way of doing things.

Okay.

• Increase the thruster speed, like you said. If it is higher that GB thrust speed, the common solo piracy has to change.
  
• Fast cruise charge. If your only chance is running, your engines should mirror that.
  
• Improve shielding to get better protection against Snac and Novas (like the Gb shields already do very efficiently as they come up fast).
  
• Give transports CMs if they are supposed to have no fighting back capabilities but only can run away (it is completely oorp for these ships not to be able to counter CDs, as not being disrupted would be aim of any transport)
  
• Increase newbie protection levels a lot (the strain will get them mostly. Experienced traders cope with ship loss and frustration much better, as they do not need credits, have friends to fly with, have spare ships, know many routes, know the pirate names, etc. New players don't.)
  
• Heretic thought, but still: If you care for the fun of trader players (which would reduce grinding lolwut power traders), you could: allow traders to fight back. Guns that can counter a single pirate would not be too much. Traders have to work in groups? ("Fly together!") or traders who have to "Hire escorts!"? Why not: "Pirates, work in groups!". Two well equipped traders should be able to take out a solo pirate. That would be balancing and putting transport as a shipclass worth flying into the game.
  

Quote:Transports/Freighters which have been killed in a PvP fight may return to the system in which they were destroyed but only for purposes of moving through the system or for trade within that system. They may only act in a purely defensive manner and may not trade in Basic Alloy, Deuterium, H-Fuel, MOX, Promethene, Robotics and Ship Hull Panels. This exemption applies only to players who are in the system for the purposes of trading and does not apply to mining, piracy or any other activity.

How would that sound?