Getting EXTREMELY frustrated with a certain interdiction exploit

[tresch]

I have an idea.

1) attempting to escape an interdiction is dangerous because it can cause some damage if you fail, but you still maintain control of your systems and can jump out after a cooldown
2) Submitting to an interdiction implies that you're shutting down your FSD and, essentially, giving control over to your captor. Once you've dropped out, you MAY NOT jump out UNLESS the interdictor specifically releases you, OR a 'reboot' of your FSD system happens which will shake control away from the captor.

The problem about having submissions also have a long cooldown, like failed escapes, is that legitimate interdictions, from local police, etc, would still take a long time, even if unnecessary. So, what would happen is if a cop pulls you over, he could scan you quickly, and then immediately release you to be on your way.

If a cop interdicts you and you have illegal goods, you can try and run to avoid the scan, but you won't be able to escape immediately, thus encouraging people to try and escape interdictions

If a pirate interdicts you, submitting doesn't give you a COMBAT advantage, simply because the pirate can hold you there for AT LEAST as long as you'd be stuck there if you failed an interdiction. It encourages players to try and escape interdiction.

Submitting shouldn't be used to escape. Submitting should be used when you want to try to make a deal, or give in to demands. You're SUBMITTING after all.

 

[[VR] Mad Mike]

I have an idea.

1) attempting to escape an interdiction is dangerous because it can cause some damage if you fail, but you still maintain control of your systems and can jump out after a cooldown
2) Submitting to an interdiction implies that you're shutting down your FSD and, essentially, giving control over to your captor. Once you've dropped out, you MAY NOT jump out UNLESS the interdictor specifically releases you, OR a 'reboot' of your FSD system happens which will shake control away from the captor.

The problem about having submissions also have a long cooldown, like failed escapes, is that legitimate interdictions, from local police, etc, would still take a long time, even if unnecessary. So, what would happen is if a cop pulls you over, he could scan you quickly, and then immediately release you to be on your way.

If a cop interdicts you and you have illegal goods, you can try and run to avoid the scan, but you won't be able to escape immediately, thus encouraging people to try and escape interdictions

If a pirate interdicts you, submitting doesn't give you a COMBAT advantage, simply because the pirate can hold you there for AT LEAST as long as you'd be stuck there if you failed an interdiction. It encourages players to try and escape interdiction.

Submitting shouldn't be used to escape. Submitting should be used when you want to try to make a deal, or give in to demands. You're SUBMITTING after all.

In a game where pirates pirate, ie steal a few tons of cargo, I could see this working, possibly... you lose the interdiction and you essentially have to drop some goods......

Sadly imo there are too many people currently enjoying risk free ship destruction of traders imo and what you are essentially saying is if you are in a T6 and you lose the interdiction, you are facing losing hrs and hrs of gameplay with no chance of escape as some geeful l33t g4m3r blows your ship up for lolz.

 

[Kondensat]

I have an idea.

1) attempting to escape an interdiction is dangerous because it can cause some damage if you fail, but you still maintain control of your systems and can jump out after a cooldown
2) Submitting to an interdiction implies that you're shutting down your FSD and, essentially, giving control over to your captor. Once you've dropped out, you MAY NOT jump out UNLESS the interdictor specifically releases you, OR a 'reboot' of your FSD system happens which will shake control away from the captor.

The problem about having submissions also have a long cooldown, like failed escapes, is that legitimate interdictions, from local police, etc, would still take a long time, even if unnecessary. So, what would happen is if a cop pulls you over, he could scan you quickly, and then immediately release you to be on your way.

If a cop interdicts you and you have illegal goods, you can try and run to avoid the scan, but you won't be able to escape immediately, thus encouraging people to try and escape interdictions

If a pirate interdicts you, submitting doesn't give you a COMBAT advantage, simply because the pirate can hold you there for AT LEAST as long as you'd be stuck there if you failed an interdiction. It encourages players to try and escape interdiction.

Submitting shouldn't be used to escape. Submitting should be used when you want to try to make a deal, or give in to demands. You're SUBMITTING after all.

sounds good and reasonable

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

In a game where pirates pirate, ie steal a few tons of cargo, I could see this working, possibly... you lose the interdiction and you essentially have to drop some goods......

Sadly imo there are too many people currently enjoying risk free ship destruction of traders imo and what you are essentially saying is if you are in a T6 and you lose the interdiction, you are facing losing hrs and hrs of gameplay with no chance of escape as some geeful l33t g4m3r blows your ship up for lolz.

perfect.....maybe the traders will start watching the radar more in order to see and identify possible interdictors approaching and would be forced to PLAY and pilot the ship instead of sleeping in front of their open chat window
so they would maybe finally work for their money. afraid of this?! get some escorts when 1.2 hits....and pay them

and....i hope that the loggers will be banned soon to solo. they dont deserve to be in open anyway

 

[Distance]

I'm a trader right now, have been for a bout 60 hours all in open. There's currently no incentive for my to sacrifice cargo space or jump range for armaments. Interdicted? boost and run job done.

I agree the background sim needs sorting so hi and low security mean something but at the end of the day piracy should be small ships preying on bigger ships for a few tons of cargo and small ships need to be able to atleast remove shields and attach a limpet to a ship before it can run away. If you want to get in to the masslocking debate to get over the broken interdiction cool down then all pirates should be flying orcas which is a 50 mil ship without upgrades.

Traders should have an incentive to add better shields and armaments so they can fight off an attack whilst trying to escape and right now there is none. If you don't want to get interdicted by a player then you can play solo or morbius. There are more mechanisms in place for a trader to escape a pirate than there are for a pirate to do his job unless a trader is feeling charitable.

 

[HoshiQaVam]

I have an idea.

1) attempting to escape an interdiction is dangerous because it can cause some damage if you fail, but you still maintain control of your systems and can jump out after a cooldown
2) Submitting to an interdiction implies that you're shutting down your FSD and, essentially, giving control over to your captor. Once you've dropped out, you MAY NOT jump out UNLESS the interdictor specifically releases you, OR a 'reboot' of your FSD system happens which will shake control away from the captor.

The problem about having submissions also have a long cooldown, like failed escapes, is that legitimate interdictions, from local police, etc, would still take a long time, even if unnecessary. So, what would happen is if a cop pulls you over, he could scan you quickly, and then immediately release you to be on your way.

If a cop interdicts you and you have illegal goods, you can try and run to avoid the scan, but you won't be able to escape immediately, thus encouraging people to try and escape interdictions

If a pirate interdicts you, submitting doesn't give you a COMBAT advantage, simply because the pirate can hold you there for AT LEAST as long as you'd be stuck there if you failed an interdiction. It encourages players to try and escape interdiction.

Submitting shouldn't be used to escape. Submitting should be used when you want to try to make a deal, or give in to demands. You're SUBMITTING after all.

That simply wouldn't work as that assumes that there is a fair chance of any ship winning an interdiction battle, but that is simply not the case.

All ships have different turning speeds in super cruise, with the Type 9 having a turning speed of half the galaxy. No matter how good a Type 9 pilot is, is highly unlikely that a Type 9 could ever evade an interdiction from a Viper.

So by those rules, a Type 9 is either instantly handed over to a pirate or instantly handing 5% hull damage - just because a pirate presses an interdict button.

Clearly that is not a good game mechanic.

I still believe the bigger problem here is that ship mass isn't used to determine whether you can actually interdict something. Realistically you should only be able to interdict something you can mass lock. A single fighter should not be able to pull a Type 9 out of supercruise.

 

[tresch]

I was under the impression that the interdiction mini-game was on equal footing. If that's not that case, then I would suggest rule 3 be that interdiction is on equal footing

 

[Distance]

I was under the impression that the interdiction mini-game was on equal footing. If that's not that case, then I would suggest rule 3 be that interdiction is on equal footing

You can buy different class interdiction modules modules for a start.

 

[HoshiQaVam]

Putting the interdiction on an equal footing isn't the answer. The interdiction itself needs to take into account the mass of each ship, and the level of interdictor module being used (with the mass having a much larger impact).

You first work out which ship has the most mass. That ship's super cruise turn speed then remains at the ship's normal level.
You then work out the difference in mass, and a negative modifier is then applied to the smaller ship's turn speed.

The bigger difference, the greater the likelihood that the smaller ship's turn speed will become worse than the bigger ship.

With a Viper vs a Cobra there is very little difference in mass, so if the Viper is lighter it's turn rate is barely reduced. It's then a completely equal match.
With a Viper vs a Type 6, there's a moderate difference in mass, so the Viper's turn rate is reduced to roughly the same as the Type 6's. Again it's then equal.
With a Viper vs a Type 9, there is a massive difference in mass, so the Viper's turn rate is reduced and is now worse than the Type 9. It's not balanced, the Type 9 has the advantage.

As above the level of interdictor module would obviously determine the severity of that difference, but a Viper's turn speed should always be reduced below the Type 9's because of the sheer difference in mass.

That then becomes a fairer system, and you don't even really need the submit mechanic even against authority ships.

 

[tagos]

No, he is asking so you don't have to own a python to stand a chance of interdicting someone successfully. He was wrong to label it an exploit (it is a game mechanic), but he may be right in the fact it is skewed in the favour of Traders unless the pirate is in a Python.

If the only way to be a successful pirate is in a python then the mechanism is faulty.

No. The way to succeed as a pirate in any ship is to learn to shoot straight, at power plants or FSD's, with fixed weapons. Especially rails. That's what skilled players are already successfully doing. The other ones are here complaining instead of practising.

 

[Jordan Cobalt]

No. The way to succeed as a pirate in any ship is to learn to shoot straight, at power plants or FSD's, with fixed weapons. Especially rails. That's what skilled players are already successfully doing. The other ones are here complaining instead of practising.

Destroying someone's power plant just destroys them, destroying someone's fsd or thrusters will just cause then to self destruct. I fail to see how that'll help you steal cargo.

 

[EUS]

I have an idea.

1) attempting to escape an interdiction is dangerous because it can cause some damage if you fail, but you still maintain control of your systems and can jump out after a cooldown
2) Submitting to an interdiction implies that you're shutting down your FSD and, essentially, giving control over to your captor. Once you've dropped out, you MAY NOT jump out UNLESS the interdictor specifically releases you, OR a 'reboot' of your FSD system happens which will shake control away from the captor.

The problem about having submissions also have a long cooldown, like failed escapes, is that legitimate interdictions, from local police, etc, would still take a long time, even if unnecessary. So, what would happen is if a cop pulls you over, he could scan you quickly, and then immediately release you to be on your way.

If a cop interdicts you and you have illegal goods, you can try and run to avoid the scan, but you won't be able to escape immediately, thus encouraging people to try and escape interdictions

If a pirate interdicts you, submitting doesn't give you a COMBAT advantage, simply because the pirate can hold you there for AT LEAST as long as you'd be stuck there if you failed an interdiction. It encourages players to try and escape interdiction.

Submitting shouldn't be used to escape. Submitting should be used when you want to try to make a deal, or give in to demands. You're SUBMITTING after all.

I respectfully disagree. There should not be a cargo slot tool that when used gives guaranteed income, which is what submitting to an interdiction becomes in your scenario.

This has been repeated ad nauseum before, but again; the 'victim' has no idea the intention of the pirate. Pirates are crafty, they can choose to simply say "hello", demand goods, or to fire at will, or all, or none. At interdiction, there's very little time to size up the opponent trying to pirate, it may be a sidewinder, it may be a 'conda.

So, I play dead (submit, no damage to either ship), size up the competition, then fight or flee. This should not be changed, ever.

 

[Cortex Reaver]

First of all, solo play is a feature that should be ripped from the game - never should have existed. If you want to play solo Elite, then save your money, download Oolite and play it for free.

Secondly, piracy is a perfectly valid (I didn't say ethical.) profession within the ED universe. Flying has risks and rewards. There's supposed to be challenge.



-CR

 

[HoshiQaVam]

First of all, solo play is a feature that should be ripped from the game - never should have existed

Because APB did so well being PVP-only, clearly all game developers want a piece of that total disaster. If there's no solo mode, then PVP would have to become consensual either by pre-designated PVP zones, which wouldn't really work in an open galaxy, or by a player flagging themselves as "PVP enabled" similarly to picking a faction in combat zones. In either case, little Jimmy fat kid who's only interaction with other people is to gank players in PVP games still won't be happy.

 

[Krieger]

Money talks and ***** walks. Money also buys you that VERY BIG STICK which allows you to go around when not trading and club everyone else with absolute impunity, giggling as you club. Hell, it allows you to buy two of every big stick there is so you can go alternative on the floggings you hand out, not forgetting to giggle....

Oh yes there's a helluva lot to be said for trading

That way combat is as "exciting" as popping bubble wrap. If you keep repeating it then by the end of evening the total is 10,000 pops and then you are Elite. Yippee!

I see a pattern here: this type of player wants to "win" without ever taking a risk. They can not endure the slightest setback. Unfortunately for them Elite has a knack of giving you nasty setbacks at moments you are least expecting it. In my view that makes Elite a great and exciting game. It makes you feel the dangers of deep space. But it infuriates the risk averse players who see their expectations of making 50,000,000 cr/hr or 2000 kills/hr go up in smoke. That's why there are so many threads in this forum about "balancing" the game.

 

[ceeldee]

My 2 cents worth. Interdicting a Trader in a kitted out Cobra is like shooting fish in a Barrel if they have very little chance of either running , defending or deceiving there attacker. There really isn't any skill required of the attacker.
As for the mini game, that seems a useless piece of nonsense, the most agile ship should always win. In a realistic scenario where interdiction is a certainty , undefendable transport ships would never be used. There needs to be some ship weapons or diversion equipment that allow for defense only, with E to A quality to increase chances so that full A equipment on both sides leads to 50/50 possibilities depending on skill.

 

[Arsen Cross]

This post is mostly aimed at Frontier developers with balancing ideas and a new "functionless" item I propose to add to the game to fix interdiction mechanics as a whole without introducing any technologies that aren't lore unfriendly.

So, I got about 11 pages in before I couldn't read any more. First off I want to start my thoughts on this by pointing out the fact that this has degrading into a Trader VS Pirate interdiction thread and you need to think about everyone with these mechanics, not just traders and pirates.

With that said this quote outlines that the current functionality that the OP is voicing his opinions about is actually NOT an intended game feature:

Havent read the 9 pages of posts yet so not sure if this has been posted already: Devs are aware and acknowledge that no cool down recharge on submission is not what they intended, from where I suspect that some aspect of the interdiction game mechanic will be changed at some point, hopefully soon(tm):

https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php?t=101378&page=15&p=1576069&viewfull=1#post1576069

Now however I personally have mixed feelings about the current submission mechanics, intended or not. At first I thought they were bullcrap as in any of my dedicated trading ships I can flee from interdiction with ease, saving time and money. However, from a technology point of view I think the current mechanics make logical sense. When you voluntarily disable your supercruise engines to submit to an interdiction you aren't stressing the drives, therefore the safety cooldown not being the full 40 seconds actually makes sense to me, because of that I feel that the current mechanics should stay as is.

HOWEVER, this is grossly unbalanced. When a submission occurs neither party should take damage. As it stands as an interdicting pilot you will always take damage so when someone submits and has the capability to flee as easily as they can now you will find yourself in a position of having to be more aggressive which in turn requires pirates to make higher demands from traders to make a profit, which in a piracy scenario makes traders less willing to cooperate and thus minimizes the possibility of a victim cooperating with a pirate, which if the piracy is successful, will almost always result in the traders ship being destroyed.

In order to balance it with the current mechanics that are in place I propose the following (Yes, I feel the current mechanics should be retained.)

1. When a submission occurs, neither the interdictor nor interdictee should take damage to their ship.
2. When a submission occurs, neither party should receive an extended FSD Cooldown.
3. Add a new Internal Component with no function other than increasing your ships mass. Let's call it a "Mass Block" for the sake of discussion.

So point 1 & 2 are just there for fairness. If I interdict someone in my Python, or Asp or heavy ship and they submit to attempt to flee I would currently take a huge amount of damage. In my Asp Explorer with an A3 FSDI I was taking 7% damage for a single interdiction costing me around 40-50k fully A-fitted. This automatically nullified this and similar ships for piracy in my eyes because in order to pirate in a way that would encourage my targets to cooperate, I'd have to demand so much cargo that it could potentially eliminate all of their profits. Now the down side of this is that smaller ships that have more acceptable costs for interdicting are not capable of mass locking the trade ships with their significantly higher masses. Thus, to retain this mechanic as is, points 1 & 2 must be implemented.

Point 3 is a bit different. This is the addition of an item that will allow players to use the existing mass lock functionality that is already in the game. But instead of pirates having to pick large, expensive to maintain ships for piracy a mass block would enable them to pick a smaller ship and artifically increase it's mass with a mass block inside any, or all of their internal compartments. The more mass, the better you can mass lock.

Well, some of you may wonder how adding Mass Blocks to the game would be balanced, and the answer to that is that the functionality for a mass block and its balancing is already built into the game. You literally would only need to add items that fit into the internal compartments of a ship that increase mass and nothing else.

A mass block would increase ships mass, and nothing else. Balancing would be automatic as your ships mass will negatively affect both your jump range/fuel consumption and your ships speed and maneuverability. This literally means that we could introduce a new feature to the game with absolutely zero feature coding being added.

A mass blocks would give all three common Elite player types tactical choices.

• Bounty hunters can use it to keep their bounty targets in their gun sights longer if they out match their target and they try to flee.
• Pirates can use them to make smaller more affordable ships capable of mass locking equal sized or larger trade ships.
• Traders/Anyone can use them to increase their mass to make it harder to mass lock them and thus increasing the chance of escape.

Keep in mind for those of you who aren't 100% on how the already existing mass lock feature works:

• A ship to ship mass lock occurs when a ship with more total tonnage than yours is in close proximity.
• A mass lock does NOT completely prevent you from escaping. It only increases the time in which your FSD takes to charge.
• The bigger the difference between the two ships, the longer it takes for the ship with the lower mass to charge their supercruise engines while in close proximity.

So with those points outlined, I say make prevent submissions from causing either party damage. Ensure submissions do not have an extended FSD delay for either user. Then add Mass Blocks to allow for tactical use of the Mass Locking feature beyond just picking a ship with the appropriate mass to mass lock the targets you want to go after.

I feel that these changes would be the most beneficial to all three parties and create and incentive to actually play the interdiction mini game because if a player has mass blocks AND skill, escaping the interdiction entirely may be your only hope.

Edit: Possible description/lore/ingame explanation of a mass block:
A mass block is a compressed block of highly dense materials compressed with high end machinery created with the purpose of artificially increasing the mass of a ship for the purpose of prolonging ship to ship engagements by inhibiting the charge time of Frame Shift Drives.

 

[Arsen Cross]

I completely retract the below post now contained in a spoiler. I was completely uneducated because I was so focused on 100% cargo. T9 fitting as proof that my previous content in this post is already possible:

http://www.edshipyard.com/#/L=40Y,E...,319YB69Y7_9Y6Q9s,0DI0Bk7UI08c07207205U05U03w

Spoiler

Oh, as a side note as for traders and interdiction... As it stands traders in dedicated trade ships get extremely shafted with choices on fitting. If they want their trade ship to be properly profitable they have to forego defenses, armor upgrades etc in order to retain jump ranges that enable them to trade.

Ideally I think the Jump Range for trade ships should be increased enough in such a way that I could say fit out a type 9 with military armor, defensive equipment, a PROPERLY rated shield for the ships size and cargo racks and still get a 10-11ly jump range fully laden.

As it stands now with the Type 9 I'm going for right now (and yes, I will be trading exclusively in open) will have to completely forego any defensive equipment just to obtain the 10ly jump range neccessary to do my trade route. The type 7 isn't as bad as the Type 9 is, but it's still bad. The type 6 is actually fairly easy to fit and I could get it to a 19.x LY jump range fully laden equipped purely for jump range. Increasing the T7 and T9's jump ranges (Bigger FSD maybe?) would help give dedicated traders the ability to properly equip their ship to make fleeing a proper mass lock and interdiction a little more survivable while still retaining the jump distances that are seen as required to trade efficiently.

 

[Krieger]

This post is mostly aimed at Frontier developers with balancing ideas and a new "functionless" item I propose to add to the game to fix interdiction mechanics as a whole without introducing any technologies that aren't lore unfriendly.

So, I got about 11 pages in before I couldn't read any more. First off I want to start my thoughts on this by pointing out the fact that this has degrading into a Trader VS Pirate interdiction thread and you need to think about everyone with these mechanics, not just traders and pirates.

<snip>
TLDR

Start playing the game and have some fun instead of worrying about (perceived) lack of "balance" and how the devs should "correct" it. See an "unbalanced" situation as a challenge and use your creativity to come up with ways of flying and configuring your ship that turn the situation around into your favour. Besides, the devs at Frontier are no beginners in game design so it is possible that what you perceive as unbalanced could be there for a reason. This may become obvious only after playing the game for quite some time.

 

[[VR] Mad Mike]

Once we have wings in I think this whole issue will change. I am not saying it will be "fixed" but the problems will be different.

2 pirates working together will be a scary proposition. The answer is not traders to team together, becasue 2, hell even 4 type 6s will make no difference, but 2 pirates together, they can both pick the SAME target. sure, the other 3 will get away, but that 1 type 6 will be stuffed. (I am not necessarily saying its a bad thing). I just hope it is the cargo hatch they target!.

The logical answer is you get 2 cargo ships and 2 escorts in a wing, and in a RL example this makes total sense and is exactly what will happen, however that sounds like pretty dull gameplay, and also not very profitable for the 2 escorts.

I suspect this could be one reason why we have not seen any knee jerk reactions from FD yet. Wings will hugely affect the balance of the game, so why waste time and resources on something which may need a total re-work in 2 weeks time?

 

[Dizzy B High]

I presume you're referring to this;



It doesn't say it's a bug, or an exploit, just that it wasn't what they intended. I am sure that they also didn't intend for pirates to be able to press one button, pull a Type 9 out of supercruise with ease regardless of what they're flying, and for the Type 9 pilot to basically have no choice but to drop cargo.

How is that any more fair that type 6's being able to boost away?

This ultimately comes down to the complete lack of balance between ship sizes, which results in pretty ridiculous things like a single Sidewinder being able to interdict a Type 9 - that simply should not be possible.

This is where it gets crazy. The game already introduces the potential of balance with the 3 different landing pad sizes, which affectively classifies ships in one of three weights. With that, you have a pretty obvious chance for easy balance.

No ship should be affective at any game mechanic versus a ship that is double it's weight class (negatively or positively).

So in other words, anything that lands on a small pad should not be able to (singularly) interdict anything that lands on a large pad. Likewise, it should (singularly) not have enough firepower to destroy anything that lands on a large pad.
In reverse, anything that lands on a large pad should be too slow to interdict anything that lands on a small pad, too slow to target small pad ships with fixed weapons, and turrets should have a negative modifier when targeting them as well.

To bridge that gap, medium weight ships can take on either.

Things change when you introduce wings. A wing of 4 small weight ships should have collectively enough mass to pull out a single heavy weight ship. Likewise, a wing of heavy weight ships should have collectively enough mass to to limit a light weight's speed enough to interdict it.

When that level of balance is achieved, everything else suddenly starts falling into place, and people start filling actual roles.

Anaconda's would be used primarily to take on other Anaconda's. Pythons used to be a menace to Type 9's. Vipers used to be a menace to Python's. Eagles used to be a menace to Vipers.

+1 yes this would be awesome your points are valid and make a lot of sense, i hope something like this in in the pipeline.


At the moment the interdiction mechanic is as the devs say not working as intended.

The 2 possible options:

1) play the minigame and fight the interdiction -

Outcome 1- You win and you go on your merry way...

Outcome 2 - you lose, suffer damage, and have a longer time for your fsd cooldown, giving the pirate time to communicate his demands, without having to open fire immediately.

2) you don't play the game and submit to the interdiction.

You suffer no damage, have less time to wait for your fsd, and can effectively escape immediately.

There is absolutely no incentive to play the minigame for traders.
A submission should be exactly that a submission, it should take longer for the fsd to charge than if you lose the interdiction.
Hopefully the rebooting mechanic being introduced in 1.2 will be combined somehow to work when being interdicted.

Theres to many traders running about with no weapons, because they can to easily run away, they are carrying valuable cargo and should be forced to arm and defend themselves.


Nobody said people have to like pirates, its a legitimate occupation though, you know they are out there and you should be equipped to deal with them, at the moment the interdictions does not really allow for the communication to properly work as its too easy to run away.

Should you be able to run away?
Yes you should
Should it be easy to run away?
No it shouldn't.

Trading needs to be a lot riskier than what it is at present to justify the huge amount of credits people are making from it, It would balance it up with the other occupations which is desperately needed.

It may also help to stop people feeling the need to "Grind", which is just simply not what the game is about, If you're playing ED you should be in it for the long haul, not just to try and obtain every ship as quick as you can, if you're doing that then you have really missed the whole point of the game.