Thank you Michael Brookes

[GluttonyFang]

Again, Mr spokesperson, what would you call someone acting in the fashion I described? What do you imagine an impartial third party would call them? Please, don't avoid a very simple question with more hand waving about your group having rules, or insinuating that your victims just don't understand your motives. And elaborate on this 'disciplinary action'- what does that entail, exactly?

The problem is that a third party, if completely stripped of any moral aligning, would just say that two opposite parties clashed and there was a conflict of interest.

I'm not avoiding the question. The situation is very simple. The community sees their interest of completing the CG hindered by Code, and Code sees its interest of blockading the CG hindered by the community.

That is all there is to the situation, a third party wouldn't have any leaning toward anyone if it is truly relatively objective.

 

[ianw]

Third of all, instancing hinders everyone equally, there's no argument that it favors us over others.

How about this one?

You just need a wing of pirates and trade comes to you - doesn't matter who any player will do.

You don't need to do anything other than wing up and wait.

Anyone trying to hunt you or escort traders has to take pot luck as to whether they find you at all or in time to help the target.

That's just the way the game works.

Experienced or well defended ships can get away but the less experience have little chance.

Anyone hunting you is severely hampered.

 

[GluttonyFang]

How about this one?

You just need a wing of pirates and trade comes to you - doesn't matter who any player will do.

You don't need to do anything other than wing up and wait.

Anyone trying to hunt you or escort traders has to take pot luck as to whether they find you at all or in time to help the target.

That's just the way the game works.

Experienced or well defended ships can get away but the less experience have little chance.

Anyone hunting you is severely hampered.

If people know they cannot handle themselves and need protection, why are they flying alone in the Open disregarding the danger it poses?

By simply winging up, it increases less experienced players' chance of survival.

Another thing for hunter is that they can wing up, with only one of their member in super cruise as bait and jump into said member's beacon when he interdicts/is interdicted by desired target(s).

The mechanic provided currently can be used for any side.

 

[Excalibrates]

If people know they cannot handle themselves and need protection, why are they flying alone in the Open disregarding the danger it poses?

By simply winging up, it increases less experienced players' chance of survival.

Another thing for hunter is that they can wing up, with only one of their member in super cruise as bait and jump into said member's beacon when he interdicts/is interdicted by desired target(s).

The mechanic provided currently can be used for any side.

The key difference is, that as terrorists, you can hide in the crowd. You can gank anyone at any time, and basically that is the generally preferred playing style of your members. (It is now obvious that your so-called principles and declarations about how you play, are a mere sham in an attempt to legitimise your ganking - you will kill anyone you want without warning if it suits you - and then create a justification for it afterwards).

You say that the wing mechanic can be used by both sides, except a "lawful" wing can't just gank anyone they see. They would need to know who was CODE and who was not in order to remain lawful. And, given your predilection for hiding your CODE membership and pretending to be traders or even bounty hunters, this is pretty hard. So you have the massive advantage in being the terrorist, you don't front up and fight, you hide and only engage when you have overwhelming force. It's perfectly legitimate in the game universe, but a pretty lame way to play IMO.

What I really don't understand is the hypocrisy you hide behind. You say you want more people to play in Open, but your actions (e.g. pad blocking) drive them to Solo. You say you have rules and principles, but the evidence is that you don't. You say that you're RP'ing a "blockade", but you don't attempt to actually blockade a station, just interdict loners from supercruise and gank them.

Basically, you just want easy kills by ganking with overwhelming force. Stop pretending that you have any higher principles.

 

[goemon]

If people know they cannot handle themselves and need protection, why are they flying alone in the Open disregarding the danger it poses?

By simply winging up, it increases less experienced players' chance of survival.

Another thing for hunter is that they can wing up, with only one of their member in super cruise as bait and jump into said member's beacon when he interdicts/is interdicted by desired target(s).

The mechanic provided currently can be used for any side.

you are right, assuming attackers would attack winged up traders, which they probably wouldn't, for the thread of a "honey pot". also, if they attack, and they meet defenders/hunters, they will highwake out.

which leaves us to one thing: if you know the game mechanics, you have no risk. if you don't know the game mechanics, you will be killed.

i don't have a problem with this on a short way (in terms of realism, morally i have, but that aside) - somebody who knows how to use a gun can go out on the street and should a number of people, before being brought down,

but as the game mechanics are in e:d he will also have no risk on the long run.

for me, this is one of the most pressuring problems.

 

[GluttonyFang]

Fold

This might sound harsh, but as much as I find catering to casual, inexperienced players is great for the community. Those with the knowledge of the game and spent time in learning mechanics and tricks shouldn't be punished because of it.

Obviously I'm one of the latter category, and probably have a bias toward the more hardcore players, but it's hard for us to see why putting time into the game and becoming good at it should not only be punished, but bears a bad name. It appears to us that it is the complaint of people who don't want to spend time in learning the game yet wish to be on an identical level as more experienced players.

 

[ianw]

If people know they cannot handle themselves and need protection, why are they flying alone in the Open disregarding the danger it poses?

Hang on - I thought the mantra was "hire escorts if you need protection"? I've lost count of the times I've seen that thrown at someone when they've been nuked in open.

By simply winging up, it increases less experienced players' chance of survival.

Oh come one - 4 type 6's in a wing with little or no combat experience just means 4 times the explosions for you guys!

Another thing for hunter is that they can wing up, with only one of their member in super cruise as bait and jump into said member's beacon when he interdicts/is interdicted by desired target(s).

The mechanic provided currently can be used for any side.

Okay - so then you have three combat pilot hunters and one bullet sponge versus 4 combat pilot pirates. Still favours you guys and it's entirely possible that by the time the escorts jump in all they'll be escorting is ship debris.

 

[Herik]

The problem is that a third party, if completely stripped of any moral aligning, would just say that two opposite parties clashed and there was a conflict of interest.

I'm not avoiding the question. The situation is very simple. The community sees their interest of completing the CG hindered by Code, and Code sees its interest of blockading the CG hindered by the community.

That is all there is to the situation, a third party wouldn't have any leaning toward anyone if it is truly relatively objective.

Ahh, but you are avoiding 'Bill Clement's' question; -about Code's supposed disciplinary action...

 

[GluttonyFang]

Hang on - I thought the mantra was "hire escorts if you need protection"? I've lost count of the times I've seen that thrown at someone when they've been nuked in open.

Or understand the game mechanic better and get oneself out of trouble, or garner experience in an exclusive mode to prepare for open.

Oh come one - 4 type 6's in a wing with little or no combat experience just means 4 times the explosions for you guys!

Actually it probably will lead to us not being able to handle everyone at once and letting people slip away. Destroying ships is the last thing on our list, especially for piracy.

Okay - so then you have three combat pilot hunters and one bullet sponge versus 4 combat pilot pirates. Still favours you guys and it's entirely possible that by the time the escorts jump in all they'll be escorting is ship debris.

You don't seem to understand nor have experience in game of this matter. I have been the bait many times myself and never even have to use a SCB before my wing dropped in after me and my pursuers.

 

[Roybe]

This might sound harsh, but as much as I find catering to casual, inexperienced players is great for the community. Those with the knowledge of the game and spent time in learning mechanics and tricks shouldn't be punished because of it.

Obviously I'm one of the latter category, and probably have a bias toward the more hardcore players, but it's hard for us to see why putting time into the game and becoming good at it should not only be punished, but bears a bad name. It appears to us that it is the complaint of people who don't want to spend time in learning the game yet wish to be on an identical level as more experienced players.

Since there are so few ways to punish a 'group that plays against the social morality' within the game and most are ineffective when it come to direct PVP...players will become frustrated.

With no good way to vent this frustration in game..they take to the social media and try to control the actions of the 'immoral' through public shaming.

This is the way things work. In the past, this went to such an extreme level, that there were very serious repercussions through out the game, the forums, the public space. and the company itself.

I think the best response to the issue at hand was given numerous times....keep a thick skin on the group, and its members...accept that the morally outraged will do this with any of your actions...have a very clear reason for why you do something (I would also suggest that it have an appropriate in game RP reason...regardless of the true motivation), state it...and drop mic and walk away.

Your groups goal was to be a pirate organization...this appears to be stepped up a bit..and you seem to want to become the most hated pirate organization. Just own it...and be happy that your goal is being attained... realize that those that oppose you will do so vociferously...but until a cease and desist comes from the devs themselves...you are able to become what you want.

 

[GluttonyFang]

Ahh, but you are avoiding 'Bill Clement's' question; -about Code's supposed disciplinary action...

Thank you for reminding me.

We have a 3 strike system, and also immediate termination if the case is severe enough. We gave some members their first warning based on reports and complaints that came in our way public and private.

- - - Updated - - -

Fold

Your feedback is appreciated.

 

[Bill Clement]

Again, Mr spokesperson, what would you call someone acting in the fashion I described? What do you imagine an impartial third party would call them? Please, don't avoid a very simple question with more hand waving about your group having rules, or insinuating that your victims just don't understand your motives. And elaborate on this 'disciplinary action'- what does that entail, exactly?

The problem is that a third party, if completely stripped of any moral aligning, would just say that two opposite parties clashed and there was a conflict of interest.

I'm not avoiding the question. The situation is very simple. The community sees their interest of completing the CG hindered by Code, and Code sees its interest of blockading the CG hindered by the community.

That is all there is to the situation, a third party wouldn't have any leaning toward anyone if it is truly relatively objective.

Thanks for the hand waving, which I specifically asked you not to do. Can I politely remind you that trolling is against forum rules? Now please actually answer my questions.

Describe this interaction: What do you call a person who initiates a friendly conversation, then interdicts the person they're having a typed conversation with, shoots out their engines, takes the time to type a mocking message, then blows out their canopy?

Characterise the person acting in this manner.

Then please actually answer a perfectly simple question about what your groups 'discipline' entails.

 

[Herik]

I hope you are saying that my RP character will not get your respect but not me as a person, because that is not productive in any sense, nor is it called for.

- - - Updated - - -
I can see how that is a valid argument.

However, if we contemplate that the defenders can disguise as a trader and lure Code pursuers into a honey pot (meaning a pre-existing normal space instance full of defenders), then suddenly we cannot send more firepower into the instance.

Therefore I don't see it as an exploit, but a clever use of the game mechanic to our advantage.

Regarding respect. No, I don't know you personally, just what (you) speak for, and since most of us don't know each other,...all most of us can comment about is of what and how we speak. Sorry, just not any room to respect your opinion.

 

[ianw]

Or understand the game mechanic better and get oneself out of trouble, or garner experience in an exclusive mode to prepare for open.

You don't need to understand the game mechanic better. You just need a top spec Anaconda with shield boosters and an understanding of how to high wake. Unfortunately this doesn't help starter traders.

Actually it probably will lead to us not being able to handle everyone at once and letting people slip away. Destroying ships is the last thing on our list, especially for piracy.

Is that why your "code" states that you will destroy any ship that tries to run away? It's the last thing on your list for "piracy" but you do it anyway. Do you really think the not "handling" sounds plausible? "News just in - you heard it here first - Code combat wing can't handle 4 unshielded type 6's!"

You don't seem to understand nor have experience in game of this matter. I have been the bait many times myself and never even have to use a SCB before my wing dropped in after me and my pursuers.

So how long does it take for the support wing to drop in and target the enemy ships who are already firing on the basic trader? Enlighten me, please.

 

[GluttonyFang]

You don't need to understand the game mechanic better. You just need a top spec Anaconda with shield boosters and an understanding of how to high wake. Unfortunately this doesn't help starter traders.

People accumulated that wealth, and they deserve to reap benefit from it (500 mil I believe).

Is that why your "code" states that you will destroy any ship that tries to run away? It's the last thing on your list for "piracy" but you do it anyway. Do you really think the not "handling" sounds plausible? "News just in - you heard it here first - Code combat wing can't handle 4 unshielded type 6's!"

Because we don't want to cause unnecessary damage, we don't open up on people without opening communication. Many clever traders will use it as an opportunity to escape or stall for their FSD.

We will disable the drives before trying to blow up the ship, then try to extract cargo, if everything fails, we will destroy the ship.

So how long does it take for the support wing to drop in and target the enemy ships who are already firing on the basic trader? Enlighten me, please.

You changed the subject mid conversation. This is about hunters going after us, not us firing on traders.

If a trader flies in a wing, the wing drops in instantly as long as they do not stretch themselves far from one another where beacon will fail.

 

[Roybe]

Thank you for reminding me.

We have a 3 strike system, and also immediate termination if the case is severe enough. We gave some members their first warning based on reports and complaints that came in our way public and private.

- - - Updated - - -



Your feedback is appreciated.

I love your 3 strike rule! Immediate termination...well, I guess if there was some littering going on, a Group W bench would be required....


NP!

 

[Kristov]

Arcadius, when did you join CODE? Sorry, but if you haven't, then there's something a bit, no not a bit but extremely, funny about a non-CODE member doing better PR for CODE then their own PR man does.

As to the statement from Michael, I don't see him referring to CODE, or even making mention that anything the 'opposition', which is exactly what he said, did anything right, proper or good, only that the players DOING the CG responded well despite the opposition.

CODE were late to the show, others were there before them blatantly exploiting game mechanics(which oddly enough, Nonya described exactly as they were used) days before. CODE only showed up, per their own admission, in order to grief the players because they were mad at FD. You and Gluttony can keep trying to whitewash that however you want, but you PROBABLY should have shut Nonya up before he made HIS post describing why CODE was there and all the game mechanics that CODE purposely exploits(seriously, incredibly stupid move on his part).

Michael was talking about how well the players responded to the CG, that's all folks, he did NOT give props or any positive spin to anyone else, so don't take that statement as being anything good/positive about what CODE and others did, because those things aren't mentioned at all.

As to how FD will respond to the actions of CODE and others, we don't know, we'll have to wait and see if some people simply stop playing or not won't we.

 

[goemon]

Those with the knowledge of the game and spent time in learning mechanics and tricks shouldn't be punished because of it.

Obviously I'm one of the latter category, and probably have a bias toward the more hardcore players, but it's hard for us to see why putting time into the game and becoming good at it should not only be punished

why "hardcore players with knowledge of the game-mechanics" should be "punished"? - because they get bored otherwise, as at least one member of your group has stated.

i personally would highly appreciate, if you and/or your code would - outside of rp, of course - take their impressive knowledge of game mechanics, to come up with an idea,

how the ingame mechanics, instancing, system security rules, bounty system etc. should be changed,

so that the cut throat galaxy is cutting throat also for those cutting throat, at least on the long run,

so you could claim somebody takes a risk acting a pirate, or a psycho, or a terrorist (boolian OR),

as the smugglers do in here, asking for serious obstacles if smuggling.

 

[GluttonyFang]

why "hardcore players with knowledge of the game-mechanics" should be "punished"? - because they get bored otherwise, as at least one member of your group has stated.

His statement is a personal opinion, not an official statement for The Code.

i personally would highly appreciate, if you and/or your code would - outside of rp, of course - take their impressive knowledge of game mechanics, to come up with an idea,

how the ingame mechanics, instancing, system security rules, bounty system etc. should be changed,

so that the cut throat galaxy is cutting throat also for those cutting throat, at least on the long run,

so you could claim somebody takes a risk acting a pirate, or a psycho, or a terrorist (boolian OR),

as the smugglers do in here, asking for serious obstacles if smuggling.

Trust me when I say this, we try to tell FD what is wrong with their game along with many many other players. But FD isn't responsive, whatsoever. Ask some of the old pilots here and their experience with asking FD to change something for the better, they will shake their heads with a bitter grin.

- - - Updated - - -

Arcadius, when did you join CODE? Sorry, but if you haven't, then there's something a bit, no not a bit but extremely, funny about a non-CODE member doing better PR for CODE then their own PR man does.

We will take in Arcadius any time and I would love to have him in my PR department for FD forum.

 

[ianw]

This might sound harsh, but as much as I find catering to casual, inexperienced players is great for the community. Those with the knowledge of the game and spent time in learning mechanics and tricks shouldn't be punished because of it.

Obviously I'm one of the latter category, and probably have a bias toward the more hardcore players, but it's hard for us to see why putting time into the game and becoming good at it should not only be punished, but bears a bad name. It appears to us that it is the complaint of people who don't want to spend time in learning the game yet wish to be on an identical level as more experienced players.

No-one is asking for you to be "punished" - just make it less one-sided in your favour when you do your piratey thing attacking weaker trade ships and outnumbering them.

If you were attacking an equally numbered combat wing of "hardcore experienced players" in equally spec'd ships who spend as much time as you learning to be awesome then no-one would be bothered - but you don't do that do you?

Of course if that equally awesome wing were flying trade ships then the advantage would be with you again by virtue of having more powerful kit.

As we keep getting told "pirates" look for weaker targets of opportunity they outnumber - because that's what pirates do. The pirate v trader thing is completely stacked against the trader - and that's how you like it.