Tab Content
Jayridium's Activity
Visitor Messages
About Me
Tab Content
  • Aashenfox's Avatar
    Today, 12:22 AM · 181 replies and 2401 views.
    Gankers be ganking in open pvp in every game that has it, that is not the problem. I give up completely. You haven't even understood what I said about the free pve items not affecting modules. You win, don't worry about it, I'm trying to nerf everything, ruin all your ships, it's a crap idea, all the others who understood it must be fools too. Well fought sir. /throwsselfonsword Put this on my epitaph please...
  • Aashenfox's Avatar
    Today, 12:17 AM · 181 replies and 2401 views.
    You misunderstand. Honestly, I know you think you don't but you do. I only have the greater good in mind. I may be deluded (but that seems unlikely given the number of people who have understood this completely and posted such), but I'm not selfish. Please. We're just discussing ideas, I don't want to force anything on anyone.
  • Aashenfox's Avatar
    Today, 12:09 AM · 181 replies and 2401 views.
    No it doesn't, how can you say that!? PvP is RUBBISH (the actual CQC is good, but the pvp element of the game is a shambles) in Elite, you can only do it in one of a few specs, stopping psychotic behavior doesn't fix that? I could say the same thing, give people the ability to defend themselves while minding their own business and we don't need C&P, we can dish it out ourselves, which was OBVIOUSLY the original plan.
  • Aashenfox's Avatar
    Today, 12:02 AM · 181 replies and 2401 views.
    It;s been tweaked along the way, but it's the same result. To achieve DErestriction, I also saiod int he OP that I hadn't finished processing the idea at that point, remember? I have also stated a couple fo times that such a big change would also require many additional tweaks to balance. The concept remains the same, you can carry a couple of non military items and still be effective. Here, see my latest post, this may help. It's yet another way of achieving the same goal which I've stated all along, being able to pvp with a couple of non military items. I see those things as the mot basic items to be able to do pve missions, with possible exception of the fuel scoop. You need the cargo to accept missions (which is dumb, but there you go, if missions didn't reward cargo that was useless, we could dispense with this as well, no issue) and the disco scanner is needed in combat ships to find assassination targets, and various other things.
  • Aashenfox's Avatar
    Yesterday, 11:56 PM · 181 replies and 2401 views.
    Cheers for the help, I got another good way to put it, think this will help a lot of people... Another potential solution to this would be to simply incorporate a disco scanner, a fuel scoop and at least 4 tons of cargo on every ship as a baseline and modules were on top of that. How would you naysayers feel about that? That would achieve the exact same goal, and you can't call THAT a nerf. Do you at least get the goal now?
  • Aashenfox's Avatar
    Yesterday, 11:39 PM · 9 replies and 146 views.
    This. Don't know why nobody uses seekers, they're bloody awesome. Oh wait, yeh I'll spend more in missiles than what you take in bounties. lol. Use high ammo capacity engineering. Rails are also good, but you better be good. :)
  • Aashenfox's Avatar
    Yesterday, 11:30 PM · 181 replies and 2401 views.
    No. There are ships which have military slots, yeh? Restrictions, you gotta have something military in there, right? Then you have a load of 'free' slots' that you can put whatever you want in. ok? So, if you take those military slots and simply change the restriction from one of military item to one of non-military item, you immediately make it so that people can carry at least 2 non military items and still do pvp effectively, WIN! The prupose of those miltary slots was to give a ship more protection while still allowing it to carry mission gear. Unfortunately, FD failed to anticipate that players could then put a military item in EVERY slot, making the already overpowered ships more so. It;s like the parents went away and left little Johnny to look after his sister Jane, they gave Johnny enough money to look after both, but Johnny thought, screw that, I'm spending it all on me! There's a phrase for that too, it goes 'having your cake and eating it'. They should have given the money to Jane, cos they...
  • Aashenfox's Avatar
    Yesterday, 11:26 PM · 181 replies and 2401 views.
    Clapping each other on the back for failing to understand something is not really productive now, is it. Gotcha, blaze your own trail is exactly what you can't do now. Blaze one trail, or lets say 1 of 4 trails, or be a victim. Do you not see that? I ask you both again, does it seem logical that you can get 56% resistance to everything? Do diminishing returns (if you even know what that means) seem like they're working properly at the moment? Sadly my proposal won't stop psychotic behavior, we need both.
  • Aashenfox's Avatar
    Yesterday, 6:23 PM · 181 replies and 2401 views.
    Well said sir.
  • Aashenfox's Avatar
    Yesterday, 1:48 PM · 181 replies and 2401 views.
    No, I am definitely not saying a ship not specced for combat should beat a ship specced for combat, have been since the first page, my proposal would not enable this.
  • Aashenfox's Avatar
    Yesterday, 1:27 PM · 181 replies and 2401 views.
    That's still not what I'm saying, and the reason you don't have an issue with that particular point is because you have no interest in the mechanics of the game as pertains pve/pvp, you're happy to stay in solo, which is fine. But a lot of people are always saying open is dead, everyone plays in pg or solo except the griefers, I know it's not exactly true (it's a mild exaggeration), but there's no smoke without fire, wouldn't it be nice to get a few more people out into open for a scrap?
  • Aashenfox's Avatar
    Yesterday, 11:37 AM · 181 replies and 2401 views.
    Your first sentence shows you don't understand, it's not about nerfing combat ships, it's about making more combat ships and builds viable. It's not about making traders fighters or anything like htat. Its not about restrictions, or rather it is, but in a reverse psychology kind of way, it's about REMOVING the RESTRICTION to have EVERY module a military item in order to be anything but lunch. If you understood the implications of the proposal, you would see at least that this is the goal, and you could then critique it on that level. Tell me in game mechanics why you disagree. I can think of a few holes that would need balancing that you can cite, that I would have a great trouble explaining how they would be fixed, but the goal is to get there and as I keep saying, simply level the playing field a little. Currenlty the choice is either run missions and CGs in solo, or accept that if you do get attacked by another player in anything but a perfectly min maxed ship, your only gameplay choice is run away or...
  • Aashenfox's Avatar
    Yesterday, 11:35 AM · 181 replies and 2401 views.
    I'm not hostile, I'm just passionate and repeating myself a lot. Of course you're allowed to dislike an idea, but you need to show you understand it, your concerns about my implementation show you haven't understood it, therefore your saying that this is all about me and trying to troll me into a personal disagreement is neither helpful nor relevant. This is about a dry mathematical mechanic of the game, not you OR me, as I said before. I want this for the good of Elite, I genuinely believe this would make the game better for the PvPers and their victims. I have only that motivation, and I CLEARLY understand the mechanics and implications of what I'm talking about. If you want to disagree, be my guest, disagree, but be able to articulate why without creating attributes that have nothing to do with the the proposal (the things you mentioned in your first post on the subject about the ships at the CG). I'm not trying to remove specialisation AT ALL, I have a ridiculous OP combat ship and I can sort of fly it,...
  • Aashenfox's Avatar
    Yesterday, 11:05 AM · 181 replies and 2401 views.
    You still haven't understood the mechanics of what I'm talking about and neither had Eve4eva when he wrote that post. REad this.... this... And this...changing just those two military slots (on the FAS for example) to foced NON-military slots and doing the same on other ships provides ALL the following benefits and no downsides except that you won't be literally invulnerable to everything except another ship specced like you any more, a bad thing?
  • Aashenfox's Avatar
    Yesterday, 8:56 AM · 181 replies and 2401 views.
    Appreciate the suggestion, that would help, definitely, but I don't think it would have enough impact, you'll still have player killers filling every slot with military parts and any spec that isn't equivalent is still just a victim, cos whetever is applied has to be applied evenly. Engineering and C&p are definitely important areas that need work, but they are indpendent of this particular mechanic, the problem with which was stated very succinctly by this poster...
  • Aashenfox's Avatar
    Yesterday, 8:38 AM · 181 replies and 2401 views.
    No you didn't, or you didn't understand it. The way I write about this, how could you possibly think I want to REDUCE anything. My proposal... * Means you can be optimal and still be able to do SEOMTHING other than kill players. * Makes the loadout choice menaingful again because you won't be able to get 55% resistance to EVERYTHING, you'll have to choose a direction of specialization. * Means that the difference betwen a PvE COMBAT spec ship and a PvP combat spec ship is no longer 50% in terms of defence just because the other person doesn't want to play the game, they just want to stack military modules so they know that anyone else not similarly specced is nothing but a victim, and kill players who don't ave a chance. How many advantages do they need in order to win?? More military modules, better engineering AND more skill? Couldn't we reduce ONE of those to make it a little more 'interesting'? * With the resistances down, the PvP ships won't be completely impervious to PvE weapons. You won't be...
  • Aashenfox's Avatar
    Yesterday, 8:36 AM · 181 replies and 2401 views.
    THat's not what's being suggested, please feel free to read the thread properly and contribute a considered opinion. You don't get it.
  • Aashenfox's Avatar
    Yesterday, 8:17 AM · 181 replies and 2401 views.
    On the contrary, YOU are the selfish one saying don't change my game for everyone's good, 'I' like it how it is. You also haven't understood the proposal, it's ok, it does requre a deep understanding of the variables of outfitting, and how engineering and resistances work, it's pretty dry stuff, but if you're intereted, you only have to read the posts in this thread with your brain turned on instead of your "nobody could possibly ever have a better idea than me!" cap on. This is not about me OR you. Thanks for the help mate, I really appreciate it. The concept is too much for many people, they can't visualise it and just cry nerf liek I said on the first page. What can you do, take a horse to water and all that. <sigh>
  • Aashenfox's Avatar
    Yesterday, 8:14 AM · 181 replies and 2401 views.
    THat's not what's being suggested, please feel free to read the thread properly and contribute a considered opinion. THat's not what's being suggested, please feel free to read the thread properly and contribute a considered opinion.
  • Aashenfox's Avatar
    Yesterday, 1:08 AM · 181 replies and 2401 views.
    It's a thought, but it's not fair to have to use every slot for defence or your only gameplay is 'run away'. They must just like seeing wake trails :)
  • Aashenfox's Avatar
    Yesterday, 1:02 AM · 181 replies and 2401 views.
    Dude, you still haven't read the thread. I have repeatedly said that traders will still not be able to take on fighters, as it should be. Read this, and tell me f you get it now?
  • Aashenfox's Avatar
    22/09/2017, 11:16 PM · 58 replies and 1882 views.
    Looking at those wake trails must indeed be thrilling. lol
  • Aashenfox's Avatar
    22/09/2017, 11:10 PM · 181 replies and 2401 views.
    People don't wanna run away. I play in solo for exactly that reason, I want to fight whatever I come across. No offence mate, but you haven't understood the proposal, you know we see eye to eye on a lot of things, I'm not going to sweet talk you. ;) I would have expected your support on this as a theorycrafter. Please have another look, understand it and let me know what you think, it's s mechanics thing, not a 'git gud' thing. ;)
  • Aashenfox's Avatar
    22/09/2017, 10:56 PM · 181 replies and 2401 views.
    But they're incorrectly balanced as it is, you see it as US getting hamstringed, I see it as the greater good. I go into CZs with my full milslot FAS too, doesn't mean I want to fly it exclusively when I'm in open so I'm competitive with griefers, and always run away when I'm not in it. Don't you think it's a bit much having 55% resistance to EVERYTHING? Wouldn't you prefer a litle thought process in your defence? Shouldn't it be; Thermal, kinetic, explosive, pick TWO?
  • Aashenfox's Avatar
    22/09/2017, 10:25 PM · 35 replies and 944 views.
    Stick to 32" at 2k if you want the best clarity, it starts to drop a little after that as the pixels get bigger. Your mileage may vary as they say, try to see one in action, you'll be sold immediately.
More Activity

2 Visitor Messages

  1. View Conversation
    Thank you for the rep CMDR!
    Safe and fun adventures in space
  2. View Conversation
    Thank you for the rep Cmdr
    Fly safe
Showing Visitor Messages 1 to 2 of 2
About Jayridium

Basic Information



Total Posts
Total Posts
Posts Per Day
Visitor Messages
Total Messages
Most Recent Message
17/06/2017 7:02 PM
General Information
Last Activity
Yesterday 10:26 PM
Join Date

4 Friends

  1. Aashenfox  Aashenfox is online now


  2. Cmdr Leasley  Cmdr Leasley is offline


    Cmdr Leasley
  3. RSM Lancaster  RSM Lancaster is offline


    RSM Lancaster
  4. Sarah Jane Avory  Sarah Jane Avory is online now

    Mistress of the Minions

    Sarah Jane Avory
Showing Friends 1 to 4 of 4