Quote: Original post by Thermodynamics
Monster cages: Works in theory similar to your repellant. However, these devices allow the mechant to capture the monster and sell them at the next stop. You just need enough have enough of the right type of cage.

[smile] I like the idea of towing monsters back to civilization with the attendant risk that they could escape (either onboard your ship or behind it if on cable or tractor beam).

Quote: Original post by ToohrVyk
There is something to be said about the methods used in the past by merchants to go through dangerous areas. Usually, they hired mercenaries to escort the caravans, thus being a merchant defended by a fighter, to use your terminology. In other cases, they sneaked through, or hired someone to do it, to smuggle goods through well-guarded borders, becoming merchants aided by sneakers.

This could work if the AI could be made smart enough (unfortunately, that's a HUGE if given lots of different weapons and tactics) My problem has been that I'm very set on you being somewhat independent, at least in single player. Hirees or mules could theoretically work.

Quote:
While this quite breaks with the symmetry of the game (with merchants needing the other classes to be active) I think that it is also easier for a fighter or sneaker to operate when he is being sponsored by a merchant (thus having access to cheaper goods, paid contracts, and a stable source of revenue should they be successful).

It might be interesting to need a patron, but that kills some of the frontiersman feel I'm going for. For instance, the fighter can always take bounties without a patron, and the sneak can always spy or steal and sell the results, generally whether it's dangerous or civilized territory.

Quote:
- Should someone plan the player's demise, he could give the player (or sell, in order not to appear suspicious) incorrect keys to a given area. While it is possible to check if pheromones are the correct ones, it's harder to know if IFF codes will be recognized without approaching the defenses.

Oh, now that's pretty dirty! :P It would be an interesting side effect of ticking off a powerful enemy, as well, similar to your ship being sabotaged after leaving a port.

Quote:
- Similarly, should two "key" retailers want to disrupt each other's market, one could sell, the other's one-use keys (such as anti-Sieger pulse emitters), which are easy to copy, thus making his copies invalid (so he can sell them and ruin his reputation, or throw them away and lose money).

This is similar to the above, but has an added layer that's a bit troubling. I like it, but it would be a case where you're being punished for something you didn't do. It would have to be obvious that the two are fighting, in which case you probably wouldn't go to either.

Quote:
- Having monopolies over certain types of technologies could be interesting. For instance, to pass through an array of killer drones, one would need a special drone key, that nobody knows how to create except for a rogue AI cell that can provide an AI bomb to disrupt the drones for a few hours. Or the the spaceborne giant metallophage leeches of X can only be repelled by species Y's bodily fluids.

Great, this is exactly in the spirit of what I meant by these keys being a matter of special trades.

Quote:
- Some missions could even involve a sneaker needing such a device in order to rescue a group of stranded NPC merchants in a dangerous area. While a fighter could break his way in, then out, a sneaker can go back and forth undetected but the merchants can't, so the sneaker would need a way to allow the merchants to pass.

This would be great fodder for a mission, and an unexpected twist, too.

Quote:
- Crystalline asteroid belts: these asteroids grow at a fast rate and can break through most hulls. Fighters can blast them, and swift sneaker ships can navigate without harm. Merchants need to use a special dissolver to create a hole in the belt.

I could use this idea in very dangerous space anomalies where debris is phasing in and out of normal space.

Quote:
- Migration maps: you can buy from astronomers/biologists maps that predict the location of monster swarms over the next few days. You can use this to move in using a just-as-fast alternate path without encountering the monsters.

- Decoys: cause the enemies to follow a drone that emits a much more attracting signal than your ship, be it a mating call for a female-starved group, or a very large reactor for energy eaters.

Haha, these I like! :P

Quote: Original post by frostburn
I think it's weird if the merchant has the ability to use "monster repellant" while fighters and other classes don't have that option. I can see two possible scenarios that would allow this:
1. The "repellants" take a lot of space, so only the immense cargo ships are able to carry them and still fulfil their main role.
2. The "repellants" are extremely expensive, so only rich fat merchants can buy them.

Theoretically, I have a better approach: Rarity. The merchant is more likely to be in possession of rare items through the normal course of trading. The merchant will have conversation, appraisal and business-related character skills that the fighter may not have (unless he's a hybrid). So items that are rare, yet not necessarily super expensive, will be more likely to be revealed to the trader.

Quote:
1. Bulk transports are immense. It should be possible to mount a lot more automated or manned turrets on those than on any class of fighter. Think worlds biggest oil tanker vs even Nimitz class carriers.

Yes, this is a good point. But for the sake of balance there has to be a wall between traders and fighters (though maybe a short one) so that traders don't beomce dreadnaughts, otherwise it's a dominant strategy, the most obvious and only way you should ever play the game.

Quote:
2. Trade routes are prized targets for pirates, but also well guarded by police/armed forces etc.

Yes, this works, as does even simply dropping cargo for pirates. The way I see it, if a pirate can grab cargo without a fight, and it's enough, they'll do so. Exceptions are if they know what you're carrying is more valuable (you've been scanned or its part of the mission plotline).

Quote:
4. Sorta like repellent: An extreme amount of guided missiles. One use, but a swarm of missiles makes gravel out of any attacker. A viable tactic for pirates would be to attack in waves, so perhaps smaller swarms of missiles would be better.

5. A single trading vessel is easy pickings. Travel in a fleet for added security.

Hrm... these could also work.

Quote:
6. Repellent: Pheromone drone like you suggested. Catch is that the feromone is impossible to synthezise so it's extremely expensive. It can only be harvested from the monsters themselves. A dead monster has enough for 0.5 to 1 dose, while a captive can produce x doses per month. It can also escape and destroy it's captors, hence the price. Possible income source for the more "aggressive" classes could be to hunt monsters for the pheromone. Capturing a live one is possible, but extremely difficult, not to mention the difficulties in transporting a live monster.

I like this, but rather than expensive I'd be more inclined to make it rare so that it's valuless to all but the right customer, who will in turn pay hansomely for it.

Quote: Original post by RazorsKiss
1. If you're a merchant, with your own ship, I don't know why you'd be handicapped by a lack of any weaponry. Even traders have their own guns - they just don't rely on them exclusively.

Technically, you wouldn't, however what I was looking for was a way you could employ a strategy that wouldn't automatically force you to fight.

Quote:
4. Escorts! Player interaction, especially for traders, is ESSENTIAL. I just quit a game called Jumpgate - a space combat RPG, with economy and all. In that game, the trader vessels were easy meat for the fighters - unless they hired escorts. It made the disconnect between trader and PvPers SO much less, that it was truly great. It may be an idea to almost FORCE the synergy between the two, imo.

In multiplayer, I see this as being a possible problem: Let's say that you and I co-op, and I'm your escort. Without traps or some sort of active gameplay, whenever we get into a fight you're pretty much the helpless damsel in distress compared to me. I get to manuever, target, blast stuff, etc., while you get to waddle along watching ME have all the fun and trying not to die.

I'm not sure that's such a good idea repeated over several trade runs.

Quote:
I just really don't know. merchants, imo, should have MUCH higher defensive capabilities - they have the money to afford it, and a sound reasoning to justify it - they're protecting their livelihood. Strong, strong defense just makes sense imo.

I don't have a problem with them being hybrids, but unless I use something like traps I'm saying to potential non-combat players (a few of which have said they'd like not to fight) that "you're confined to a fraction of the map unless you fight."

Now, it may be if the traps idea is too silly that merchant gameplay CAN'T stand on its own, but that'd be a shame, really.

Quote:
That really, truly, depends on how "economy" is implemented in your game. How dynamic is the economy you're planning? I suppose I'll go look it up, and see if you say anything about it.
Ok, found it. If you're going to have THAT much competition, and if the cut-throat tendencies will be that available, the merchant ships will HAVE to be armed (if not as heavily armed as combat ships), and will HAVE to have at least an "in" with some sort of militant group. Be it mercenary, private army, or what have you. Just because they are merchants does NOT mean they have to be defenseless. A fighter's commodity is his fighting skill, a sneak's commodity is his stealth, and a merchant's commodity is his MONEY, and trading ability - to simplify it.

Heh, I'm assuming you've read the planned gameplay for vultures, jealous traders and reputation-based trading. I'm hoping, though, that you don't draw the conclusion that the ONLY way to deal with that stuff is by force of arms. It's not. That's where the social gameplay the trader will have invested in SHOULD shine in their favor.

Quote:
1. Join a consortium/business venture.
2. Get in good with the "mercs"
3. Ensure my profit margin includes "protection" expenses.

Fair enough, as I see it, this should work. (Again, just didn't want combat to have to be the ONLY solution you'd have).

Quote:
As a previous poster said, there is strength in numbers. There is also more money in better defense. If a fighter wants to fight, he either has to work for the military, be a pirate/buccaneer, or a mercenary, right? As a military pilot, he fights other militaries. As a Pirate, he preys on the weak. As a mercenary, however, he fights for whoever pays him! Who would THAT be, do you think?

[smile] Yes, there are strong interdependencies, which I have no problem with. Good points.

Quote:
EDIT: Well, you got my juices flowing. Let me expand on this a bit. Stand by for a more involved question + statement on economy for the traders, and their role in "society"

Looking forward to it! :P

Quote: Original post by Terlenth
Well I agree with the idea that Merchants probably won't have the most fighting prowess you can't just give them an item to make monsters go away.

I would think that it would be more fun, and challenging, if you made the merchant able to talk his way out of a situation. Most merchants, at least the good ones, have very high charisma (Think Bill Clinton but on lower scale =P).

What I would suggest is that maybe instead of having an attack power that the merchant should have a coercion power where he can talk the monster out of killing him. Or, something along those lines. Even so much as to tricking the moster into following you to town and being sold off, as similarily suggested by Thermodynamics.

This idea DOES work with reasonable enemies, but as I noted in the OP, there are unreasonable enemies that dominant the majority of untamed space. By story convention, you can't communicate with them, you can't reason with them, and they're like mindless starving mouths.

Now the merchant wouldn't just be getting a giveaway. They'd have to work to get the item. What I'm thinking of is the player saying something like: "Man, I really need to cross this void to get those items on the other side. If I don't want to hire escorts who will either die or cut deep into my profit margin, maybe I can trade around for those rares and get enough 'repellant' to make it there and back."

Assuming trading around is EXACTLY what the merchant-minded player wants to do, wouldn't this enhance trade itself because it would yeild indirect / more covert gameplay?

Quote: Original post by Iron Chef Carnage
Just make sure that these options aren't exclusive to merchants. It would break the game too clearly into "classes", which is an antiquated system.

:O) Um, Huston, we have a problem... [smile]

While I wasn't of the mind to clearly enforce class limits, it seems important to have classes for three reasons: Multiplayer interdependence, strategic delineation in multiplayer and single-player, and replay value.

If you have a classless system, I fear that players will lack identity, as well. While this isn't much for players who make their own objectives, for other players classes cement roleplaying by giving them strong leads (via ability rewards or penalties) on how their character is supposed to be played.

The merchant as a class, in this case, has an easier time levelign the skills that open up frontiers, make new trade contacts, and allow for exploiting new trade opportunities. Now the combatant or sneak classes aren't restricted from this, it's just more expensive to do so.

(I'm not yet wedding completely to this system, however, so if you have a strong critique against classes I'd love to hear it).

Quote:
Instead, include a number of methods by which to resolve conflict. Weapons, shields, cloaking systems, rapid jump systems, defensive countermeasures, monster traps, decoys, jamming units and all other anti-bad guy gear should be available to any starship pilot.

Again, I agree with this, only differing on the cost in terms of either acquisition or use. Natually, the merchant is handicapped by huge holds filled with cargo rather than reactors or missiles. And there's no reason why the combatant can't get repellant, either-- but by making repellant something more that is rare and has to be traded for, it should be logically more likely that merchants would have it but fighters wouldn't. Now technically, merchants COULD go into the business of selling it (and would) but that's where the idea of temporary utility comes in-- the fighter may not waste time carrying around a limited amount of goods when they could just blast their way through, but for the merchant, it's par for the course.

Quote:
In Escape Velocity, I remember buying a flare launcher for my shuttlecraft, because actually arming my ship took valuable cargo space and I could generally jump out before lasers penetrated my armaplast. With flares to counter missiles, I was okay for the tougher parts of the galaxy. Later, when I splurged on a heavily armed Corvette-class ship, I installed a flare launcher. I didn't really need it, with the tritanium and the shield capacitors, but I kinda liked it, and sure enough, it saved me a few times.

:P Never tried this. Instead, I took the cheap co-op way of running fleets of hired Terrapins between Earth and some other milkrun until I could afford a Starbridge.

Quote:
So don't just try to think of things for merchants. Think of alternative ways of overcoming threats, and then adjust the prices and sizes and ease of use so that a merchant or a soldier or a spy will tend to use the gear that is most associated with his trade. Be careful not to preclude a little Han Solo-ism.

I think we're mostly agreed (heh, except for classes :P)

Quote:
To answer your original question, I've always liked the idea of a civilian craft emitting a big cloud of shiny metal strips, radioactive effluent, and water vapor. It would scramble rudimentary sensors and tracking systems, and let them make an emergency jump out of harm's way.

How about this, as well as an alternate strategy: The ability to accelerate the same and power down all systems, making it look like you've run off when you actually haven't!

Quote: Original post by Michalson
NPC mercenaries would seem like the logical choice. Relatively tough, they stick around for a fixed time or fixed numberof battles. They effectively work as a non-player controlled weapon (non RPGs have had a "berserk" ability where your player will become very strong but lose control for several turns, attacking no matter what). The merchant uses purchased goods to defend himself (shields, stun grenades and other no-skill based toys) while the mercenary does the damage. By making them cost a lot you can make them less useful to other classes (more effective for them to just buy better weapons and use their own strength). The cost of supporting one or more mercenaries could help balance a merchants normally overwhelming amount of cash.

Just an extension of what I've been saying above: I agree with this option but we both know that AI in games is legendary for its spottiness. Normally you don't get helpers because they're too stupid to assess the situation logically outside of squad-based sims or set-piece scripted missions. Now, if you have a wide variety of ways of being attacked, I think this gets even worse. Should the merc use area of effect weapons? Should they save their heaviest weapons for what's ahead? What happens when they get injured, do they just keep fightig until they fall apart? If not, then what happens when they retreat? Are you just a barge waddling to the jump point while your mercs flee and you get picked apart?

Mercs are a solution, but I don't think they're as powerful as is being suggested unless the player is controlling them. THEN I'm sure mercs are downright deadly, as any combat guided by a thinking mind versus present-day silicon should be!

Quote: Original post by Iron Chef Carnage
Having read the suggestions in this thread, I feel compelled to repeat a piece of advice that I know you've heard many times, Wavinator: Be careful to balance your options carefully.

Thanks, useful and insightful advice, as usual ICC.

Quote:
It would be strange indeed for a merchant courier to be more difficult to catch, target, or damage than a military craft. With a ship built to haul cargo above all else, it should be entirely possible to be in a hopeless position. Faster, more dangerous vessels, armed with the tools of war, should not be easily countered.

Again, let me be more clear. The more reasonable enemies of the merchant, including the police or raiders, should have the options you mention: Enemies that take prisoners, ransome you, are satisfied with dropped cargo, or put you in jail for a time. That's not so much the problem. The problem is the numerous things like Siegers or corrupted defense drones guarding long dead empires, past which may lay untapped markets. That's where the core of the "repellant" idea sprung from.

Quote:
"Sometimes, you die." So it should be in the game. There shouldn't be a trump card for every scenario, and if interstellar ninjas come for your barge, it should take more than toys to escape.

You're right, the player can't have a rabbit in the hat for every situation. But I'd much rather they be at fault for dying when it happens.

Quote:
If you must make it possible for a player to survive any situation, make them take a total loss on cargo, ship and crew to do it sometimes. Reward intrepidity, but punish hubris. Where that distinction is made I leave to you.

:P Well said.

Quote: Original post by Wavinator
Technically, you wouldn't, however what I was looking for was a way you could employ a strategy that wouldn't automatically force you to fight.

I guess I was taking things like ECM, Cloaking, and Extended Radar/Shields for granted. So, let's factor them in.

Let's make some assumptions, just because.

1. We're talking about cargo ships. Cargo ships are *usually* built along the same lines as military vessels, but, because they're all about interior space, they have less real "room". That interior space is taken up, for the most part, by cargo holds. This design "feature" means that you have less room for "other stuff". So, a cargo ship, by design, would have a LOT less guns, less armor, and less "bells and whistles", militarily, than a ship geared for war.

Ok, that's out of the way.

2. Ok, since we don't have the interior room for massive gunnery, we concentrate on other stuff. Smaller stuff. A trader will have guns, sure - just not as much as a military ship of the same displacement. It'll also be MUCH less manueverable, when full. So, speed is out of the question, manueverability is out, and out-gunning is out. BUT - it may not be a ship of the same class it's up against - it may be a MUCH smaller vessel, or group of vessels. Bear with me.

3. Smaller stuff could include:
ECM equipment
Jamming equipment
Cloaking of some type
Better Shields (you have shields?)
Better Radar (see the bad guys first, and you have a running start)
Better Comm. Equipment
"Special" devices, such as your IFF equipment, Pheremone excreter, or traps, cages, whatever. These would LIKELY only be good for NPC-type enemies, though. When it comes to them, you're looking at a totally different paradigm. For them, the options you've dicussed above are completely awesome, and could do very well.

For PvP-type things, you're going to have to give the ships something REALLY different in order to avoid PvPers. You either have to "buff" them up to the point they can get away, distract, or disappear easily enough to avoid the superior military ships.
Or, some of the military types will ignore any and all attempts to reason, bribe, or run - and blow them up. The "kill stat", or the cargo retrieved from the wreckage will be worth more to them, unless they're in it for the "mercenary" aspect. Which, knowing today's gamer, is highly unlikely - although possible.

For PvE aspects, there are a HOST of possibilities for non-combatant work-arounds, and the above are quite doable. However, if we get into PvP... how many space combat types will CARE? They are MUCH more likely to shoot first, ask questions later. That was the crux of my point, really. Are you asking only for singleplayer or PvE? Multiplayer/MMO, the paradigm shifts considerably in favor of the military types, and away from the peaceable types.

Quote:
In multiplayer, I see this as being a possible problem: Let's say that you and I co-op, and I'm your escort. Without traps or some sort of active gameplay, whenever we get into a fight you're pretty much the helpless damsel in distress compared to me. I get to manuever, target, blast stuff, etc., while you get to waddle along watching ME have all the fun and trying not to die.
I'm not sure that's such a good idea repeated over several trade runs.

Well, unless you're willing to give the trader equal gunnery to the military types, that's just the way it goes. A supertanker just isn't going to compete with an aircraft carrier for military supremacy.

It also isn't going to get away from even a destroyer, unless it has some good escort ships. The military types, if they want the GOOD money, know they have to look after the ones who have it. A cargo ship doesn't HAVE to waddle - it can defend itself, up to a point, but there wil ALWAYS be those who will shoot you down, regardless of how well you talk, how reasonable you are, and how "loved by all" you have been in your career.

But, in reality, there's a few options.
1. You can compromise cargo for weapons, and be a more active participant.
2. You can pile on the defensive options, like shields and armor, and help with what little you have for offensive weaponry
3. You can go stealth, and hope you don't get spotted
4. You can give them truly awesome acceleration ability, and let them outrun everything - at the cost of cargo...

Lots of things. But, in a way, you're invalidating your own argument above. If there are those who don't WANT to fight, in multiplayer, you have only a few options, as I see it.

1. Put in a "carebear" chip - anyone who has one is unkillable by other players. (Which, in my opinion, invalidates any sort of player interaction...)

2. Encourage escorting by game model - if they don't WANT to fight - will they CARE if someone else does it for them? They didn't want to fight in the first place. As long as THEY aren't fighting, who cares if your little escort has all the "fun"? (That's where you invalidate the point, to me. If they don't fight, and won't - what difference will it make if their escort does? It isn't "fun" to him. It IS fun to the escort. If the cargo-type wants to trade AND fight - make a ship that CAN do both. Better fighter, worse trader. *shrug*)

3. Encourage even further, a well-balanced cargo ship with defense, speed, and "escape" options all well-rounded, to give them the best chance of escaping player-controlled bad guys.

Quote:
I don't have a problem with them being hybrids, but unless I use something like traps I'm saying to potential non-combat players (a few of which have said they'd like not to fight) that "you're confined to a fraction of the map unless you fight."

Now, it may be if the traps idea is too silly that merchant gameplay CAN'T stand on its own, but that'd be a shame, really.

Note, though, I said defense - more along the lines of shields, ECM, anti-missile systems, etc. A bristling porcupine quill of offensive firepower, they may not be - a tough nut to crack, though? If you pile on enough defenseive options for the intrepid trader to make a would-be attacker think twice, simply because it's so well-armored/shielded/protected, and you may have a winner.

Quote:
Heh, I'm assuming you've read the planned gameplay for vultures, jealous traders and reputation-based trading. I'm hoping, though, that you don't draw the conclusion that the ONLY way to deal with that stuff is by force of arms. It's not. That's where the social gameplay the trader will have invested in SHOULD shine in their favor.

The only thing to me, is this. Against other players, there's only a few options. For players you are friendly with, you're good. This means you should have as many friends as possible. All well and good. However, an enemy group, or pirates, or just bad peoples, won't CARE who your friends are. You're highlighted red under their crosshairs, and their fingers are itching for that trigger. How do you get out of that? You can TRY to talk... if they're interested in money more than kill +1. Which isn't always. You can try to bluff, you can do lots of things. The endgame is, though, it depends on what the other guy thinks.

"Shoot, or not?"

Even if it's someone who doesn't WANT to fight... that's something they're going to face, unless you implement a PvP-switch.

Quote:
Fair enough, as I see it, this should work. (Again, just didn't want combat to have to be the ONLY solution you'd have).

Again, against PvE enemies, you can have them do whatever you want, and give them whatever options you wish. X:BTF did a good job with that, imo. Any of the above options that were discussed would be great, with proper implementation.

Against players, though... sometimes you just CAN'T avoid a fight. Knowing this, I would have as much shields/protection as I can, because... my aim is to make money. Sometimes you have to invest it to safeguard it. As many options as we'd LIKE to think we have, with others, with SOME, the only option WILL be to fight.

Quote:
[smile] Yes, there are strong interdependencies, which I have no problem with. Good points.

Thanks :D

Anyway, the crux of my argument is this:

For PvE enemies, the choices can be many, few, multi-layered, or simple. It only depends on the imagination of the writer/scripter. When it comes to real, live enemies, you're sometimes going to have only two options:

"Fight, and maybe die".

or

"Don't fight, and certainly die.

I know, because I've both given, and received those two options, right there.

If you have escorts, you now have 3. "Let the escorts fight the bad guys - or deter the bad guys from trying". A Good Thing™.

Maybe I'm ahead of you, thinking about PvP - but I really don't have a very "bright and shiny" outlook on player interaction :D

PKers will PK :D
Carebears will whine about PKers...

So, how do you keep both from each other's throats, and how to you deter the inevitable PKer victory over the helpless carebear trader?

That's more of the point I was making. Sorry if I threw the discussion off too badly.

Hmm, I see a problem a slight snag if you will it lies with this line "going into dangerous places and reconnecting the galaxy". Thats not something merchants traditionally due. After all a merchants life is about profit and acceptable risks. Going into the wilds of the unknown is not something they often due and especially not with a bulky cargo vessel. The only way I can see this working is if you some how combine merchant with exlporer/adventurer.

Defence could come at the cost of highering guards and as such the merchant must rely on other "classes" like they rely on it.

If you wanted to go with monster repellent idea perhaps you could do it another way. There is a deep space exploration corporation, which sole goal is to profit from the wild lands. They are filled with the best scientist and engieers and is also home to many wealthy merchants. The DSEC has learned much from studying the lost worlds and they are able to offer the memeber access to exlusive technology not available outside or at any price. To join the DSEC costs vast amount amount of money so only the truely wealthy can join. But once you do you gain access to their resouces, the tech they have for sale is only available by in exchange for rare commodities. These technologies include the monster repellents as well as salavage old tech.

well its just an idea.

Quote: Original post by RazorsKiss
...
Better Shields (you have shields?)

Yes.

Quote:
...
"Special" devices, such as your IFF equipment, Pheremone excreter, or traps, cages, whatever. These would LIKELY only be good for NPC-type enemies, though. When it comes to them, you're looking at a totally different paradigm. For them, the options you've dicussed above are completely awesome, and could do very well.

Thanks, that's one more vote in favor. :)

Quote:
For PvP-type things, you're going to have to give the ships something REALLY different in order to avoid PvPers.

ATM I am really having problems with the idea of PvP. Consider this: IF you want a PvP experience there are any given number of MMOGs to go play. Why should I put my energy into doing something that's being done quite nicely elsewhere?

I do like the idea of cooperative play versus the environment, though, even though that has many special problems that go with it.

Quote:

Quote:
In multiplayer, I see this as being a possible problem: Let's say that you and I co-op, and I'm your escort. Without traps or some sort of active gameplay, whenever we get into a fight you're pretty much the helpless damsel in distress compared to me. I get to manuever, target, blast stuff, etc., while you get to waddle along watching ME have all the fun and trying not to die.
I'm not sure that's such a good idea repeated over several trade runs.

Well, unless you're willing to give the trader equal gunnery to the military types, that's just the way it goes. A supertanker just isn't going to compete with an aircraft carrier for military supremacy.

Agreed if the only gameplay is combat versus the challenges.

Quote: But, in reality, there's a few options.
1. You can compromise cargo for weapons, and be a more active participant.
2. You can pile on the defensive options, like shields and armor, and help with what little you have for offensive weaponry
3. You can go stealth, and hope you don't get spotted
4. You can give them truly awesome acceleration ability, and let them outrun everything - at the cost of cargo...

Yes, these would all work.

Quote:
Lots of things. But, in a way, you're invalidating your own argument above. If there are those who don't WANT to fight, in multiplayer, you have only a few options, as I see it.

Well, they may not want to actively target and destroy, but they will want something else that's interesting to do along the way. I've been trying to make that a hallmark of the design in a world filled with combat-only games. (I don't have anything against combat, but it gets old if that's the only thing you can do).

Quote:
The only thing to me, is this.
...

That's more of the point I was making. Sorry if I threw the discussion off too badly.

:P I feel bad that you've written so much about PvP when I'm so close to not even considering it an option. Sorry 'bout that. Good material, though.