That is exceedingly cool that players did this![]()
It shows the commitment of the community and I'm personally glad that it was done. Shows we can be better then certain other Sci-Fi communities out there who only produce vitriol en masse.
That is exceedingly cool that players did this![]()
Since all black market trade harms the controlling faction (except in Anarchies once 3.0 is out) ... I assume the black markets realise exactly that!Any black market should by now realize what that stuff does to the station they are in.
I'm not sure this is the case.If you see MA demand without any in your holds, you're closer to being affected.
Ah-hah, so you admit that Frontier are secretly feeding you information to oppose the UA bomber cause!There's some of us who actually read the Galnet.
If you look at the Colonia traffic report (archive https://cdb.sotl.org.uk/systems/1#reporthistory ) then there's a noticeable spike on 31 Jan (the news came in on 30 Jan) above the normal weekday average, which I'd estimate at about 75 ships ... plus more lost in the general noise who couldn't make the journey in a single day. At several hundred meta-alloys each, that would massively overwhelm any bombing attempt.If it was players that did it, very cool.
Just plenty of complainers on various places that claim it was FD, so yeah.
Either or UA bombing is still an easy tool compared to general BGS.
-Then I noticed that Notrach-Ihazevich Research Facility was due for shut down, so I bought a Type-7 and delivered 512 tons to the Imperials. We'll see how that one turns out.
Ah-hah, so you admit that Frontier are secretly feeding you information to oppose the UA bomber cause!
1: UA bombing works just fine, it is UA not AU.
2: nope, it seems pretty obvious, though yes it is a presumption, that you are referring to the recent event that was going on where people UA bombing dove enigma?, and FD stepped in. For fairly obvious reasons, because a limited amount of players, those UA bombing were able to significantly negatively affect the event for NO other reason then spite, yeah basically harassing people for no real reason? so yeah FD stepped in, but that's what they did.
3: Use the background simulation? but this is generally where people say "But I don't want to", so people use UA bombing which is significantly easier and less work then working the background simulation and game mechanics built for these kinds of actions.
So yeah, please don't act like the victim when it comes to UA bombing, it is compared to the real attack mechanics in the game, the easy way out and a way that can easily disrupt other players who put in a heck of a lot work then those UA bombing.
That was so good, it had to be said twice.Hi thanks for your reply,
Undoubtedly when individuals or small groups are bombing to harass a CG I get the need for UA bombing to be limited by FDev and would agree that this should be so.
"act like the victim" oh I can read so much into that and could take a view that 1. You patronising git. 2. Your answer is assuming a bit much and is offensive. 3. There was a large amount of work over a period of time put in by a number of players.
but I will resist becoming involved with a potential slanging match, I am looking overall to improve my knowledge of the game. I have used other aspects of the game such as bounty hunting, going into conflict zones etc. The UA bombing is only one aspect and is available to use, you try modding ships with the correct equipment to carry enough of these to make any difference over a large number of journeys, and it just is not as easy as you appear to suggest. Given that you also need to be aware that certain factions may have a number of protective measures already in place, my concern was we had to an extent taken this into account when targetting a specific factions stations and had hoped that at least one of these would have shown a success, given that none did I considered the reasons why this could have been the case.
Once again I thank you for your informative tutoring.
Hi thanks for your reply,
Undoubtedly when individuals or small groups are bombing to harass a CG I get the need for UA bombing to be limited by FDev and would agree that this should be so.
"act like the victim" oh I can read so much into that and could take a view that 1. You patronising git. 2. Your answer is assuming a bit much and is offensive. 3. There was a large amount of work over a period of time put in by a number of players.
but I will resist becoming involved with a potential slanging match, I am looking overall to improve my knowledge of the game. I have used other aspects of the game such as bounty hunting, going into conflict zones etc. The UA bombing is only one aspect and is available to use, you try modding ships with the correct equipment to carry enough of these to make any difference over a large number of journeys, and it just is not as easy as you appear to suggest. Given that you also need to be aware that certain factions may have a number of protective measures already in place, my concern was we had to an extent taken this into account when targetting a specific factions stations and had hoped that at least one of these would have shown a success, given that none did I considered the reasons why this could have been the case.
Once again I thank you for your informative tutoring.
The UA bombing is only one aspect and is available to use, you try modding ships with the correct equipment to carry enough of these to make any difference over a large number of journeys, and it just is not as easy as you appear to suggest. Given that you also need to be aware that certain factions may have a number of protective measures already in place, my concern was we had to an extent taken this into account when targetting a specific factions stations and had hoped that at least one of these would have shown a success, given that none did I considered the reasons why this could have been the case.
Hi thanks for your reply,
Undoubtedly when individuals or small groups are bombing to harass a CG I get the need for UA bombing to be limited by FDev and would agree that this should be so.
"act like the victim" oh I can read so much into that and could take a view that 1. You patronising git. 2. Your answer is assuming a bit much and is offensive. 3. There was a large amount of work over a period of time put in by a number of players.
but I will resist becoming involved with a potential slanging match, I am looking overall to improve my knowledge of the game. I have used other aspects of the game such as bounty hunting, going into conflict zones etc. The UA bombing is only one aspect and is available to use, you try modding ships with the correct equipment to carry enough of these to make any difference over a large number of journeys, and it just is not as easy as you appear to suggest. Given that you also need to be aware that certain factions may have a number of protective measures already in place, my concern was we had to an extent taken this into account when targetting a specific factions stations and had hoped that at least one of these would have shown a success, given that none did I considered the reasons why this could have been the case.
Once again I thank you for your informative tutoring.
As one of those players who monitor the Starport Status Report, I can underline what damon8r351 said.
I'm not trying to disrespect you BillyS, but myself and others I associate with seem to have a better understanding of UA bombing and how to counter it than you and your associates do.
We know the triggers, the numbers and the timescales of activities. If you UA bomb a station and it makes it onto the status report, consider that a failure because we will mobilise an overwhelming response of MAs to that station.
We know how many UAs got delivered to Dove Enigma (160t on the 29th, 160t on the 30th), and we scheduled half a dozen Cmdrs with a hold full of MAs to counter it.
As it turns out, I know that Canonn had AT LEAST 5000t on the way, and CoR had 1400t. Other player groups had similar numbers so there was no chance in HELL of Dove Enigma getting shutdown!![]()
Personally I'm too dumbfounded what exactly drives a person to do something detrimental to someone else, both RL wise or in a game. But I guess humanity isn't build to become smart anytime soon, specially the male part is still Neanderthal level.
Personally I'm too dumbfounded what exactly drives a person to do something detrimental to someone else, both RL wise or in a game. But I guess humanity isn't build to become smart anytime soon, specially the male part is still Neanderthal level.
Bernard from Yes Minister actually.You might think choose to think that, I couldn't possibly comment. (quote from the UKHouse of Cards)