Yes that's the point. Limited stuff easy to script, loads of random stuff everywhere nightmare to script. Apples and oranges.
C'mon, this is faintly ridiculous.
- Thread starter Noddie
- Start date
Yes that's the point. Limited stuff easy to script, loads of random stuff everywhere nightmare to script. Apples and oranges.
Wasn't just the marketing, but the first two-thousand hours of play or so. I may have been disappointed with the slow pace of fleshing out some placeholders, but the game didn't really put the lie to the marketing until I'd been playing for at least a year.
It really does have a great flight model
It's still pretty solid, but even the flight model has lost some of it's luster over the time I've played. Pre-release nerfs to FA Off, significantly hardening the velocity caps, unecessary buffs to some ships, and, later on, Engineering (which has dramatically over-emphasised boosting, IMO), have all degraded my enjoyment here.
I think if flight model was my main concern, I'd be going for a more hard sci-fi or pure simulationist game, or even one of the PvP match-based titles out there now like In The Black or Infinity: Battlescape...though it's hard to get a real feel for such things without trying them fist hand (imagine trying to get a feel for ED's flight model from watching a dev on Frontier live stream muddle through with an XBox controller). Unfortunately, I'm looking for more of that MMO RPG sandbox with high player-agency type gameplay, combined with a robust first-person flight model. These sorts of games are pretty rare.
Deleted member 121570
D
This is legit the best bit IMO. Far more fun FAoff boosting now with PDs that can keep up and high speed. Maintaining timing & control in terrain becomes the challenge itself.
Now, if only they'd buff the PD on the Eagle so it could permaboost, I'd be perfectly happy.
I get it's maybe not good for the wider game or everyone though.
That's intellectually dishonest and you know it. Or maybe you don't I mean, at this point, I don't even know.
Most explorers do, it maxes out the jump range. Paper is relative, but compared to a drop ship so obese with armor reinforcements and a joke of a class 1 FSD that won't even get it out of the current system... Yeah.
So don't trade and don't get ganked. Man, get out of here.
And for the record, the videos I watched? They were posted by players in shock and frustration. I know because they wrote text posts to accompany them. Yes, JUST DONT GET GANKED WHILE FLYING IN OPEN. I mean...like I said. Get out of here.
Sorry but that sounds exactly like what we have, except for the "Rare and meaningful PVP." Gankers are SOOOOOPER common, and ganking is such an issue they added an additional layer to the crime system to try to curb some of it. Otherwise, yeah. Most MMO games don't even allow non consensual PVP across their entire play space.
They don't need to do this. Jump range, in and of itself, does very little for the exploration experience.
The only reason to prioritize jump range above survivability, as an explorer, is to shorten travel time to/from a specific survey area, or to reach a tiny fraction of fringe systems that would otherwise be categorically impossible to get to. Neither of these things were ever mandatory for exploration in general and 99%+ of the ~99% of undiscovered systems out there can be reached with a ~20ly ship.
Obviously not what I was implying.
I don't doubt it. I also don't doubt that they could easily have taken steps to mitigate and overcome the risks their CMDR's were exposed to. The shock and frustration expressed by these individuals is a direct result of them biting off more than they could chew or failing to have their characters take rational precautions.
Works for most people.
I can't agree with that, at all.
It lets you get places faster. That whole time thing you seem to have an infinite amount of.
Also you're missing my point. ANY exploration ship is gonna look like paper next to MOST PVP/gank ships. Again, I'm surprised you keep making this point considering you call yourself a PVPer.
That's what you said though.
Ah ha ha! Ahh ha ha! Oh man, I guess I was just asking for it when that dude started firing at my landed ship while I was in my SRV. Oh man, I hope you don't have daughters. "Well honey, just don't get assaulted. Your skirt is too short." Wow man. Wow.
This is the exploration ship I took on DW2:
I even have selfies to prove I'm a Real Explorer(TM):
Of course, you don't need a Corvette to be safe...indeed even my CMDR's DBX is safer, I just don't hang around to fight as long.
No it's not. You mistook my suggestion that proper steps be taken to mitigate risks with a suggestion that an activity be avoided.
My CMDR smuggles, trades, explores, etc, in Open, in near absolute safety...because I'm not significantly self-handicapping and the game heavily favors the defender.
Why didn't your CMDR dismiss the ship after deploying the SRV? That's like, avoiding a rebuy 101.
No wonder you've got such an issue with not getting ganked in this game if you're more worried about placing blame than having your character take rational precautions.
I've lived in places were it wasn't wise for me to wear my wedding band, or more than twenty dollars of clothes, while walking around alone. That I should be able to do as I please does nothing to mitigate the practical risks of doing so. Any potential attacker can be completely at fault in any legal or moral sense, and I can still be an idiot for not taking simple steps to avoid being assaulted. I may not like the reality of such situations, but that doesn't make it not the reality, nor would a plausible fantasy setting be devoid of similar scenarios.
Last edited:
Morbad, did you ever put that Conda you were testing to good use?
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=82axZZhSwZw
The fact that you took a Corvette, a ship with terrible jump range pound for pound compared to an Anaconda that has similar if not better defensive capabilities tells me all I need to know about you: You have an incredible tolerance for repetitive tasks.
As I've pointed out before and I know you know: that's not most players.
I believe your exact words were players should avoid risk taking activates, and then I asked you what risk taking activities were, and you gave an all encompassing answer not "Trading without shields." Which I personally don't condone but that's me.
Well, good for you for being a badass. Ganking is such a huge problem there are literally anti-ganking organizations. Not everybody has gotten to a powerful ship with engineering yet, and as stated, even if you submit to an interdiction, properly configured the attacker can shred you before you have a chance to jump. Soooooooo ganking is a problem and pretending it's all the players faults for not being better prepared is ridiculous.
Because I wasn't leaving in the middle of some wasteland while I randomly drove around, I was doing SOME kind of hostile outpost thing (I honestly don't remember) and was fortunately already fleeing towards my ship when the ganker opened fire. I did not end up paying a rebuy, but I know of plenty of people who have and the situation was absurdly cowardly.
Actually generally I don't because as a rule: I'm not an open player. I only come to open when I'm prepared for a fight (even if I'm not there to expressly do combat.). But most of the time I just want to play the blasted game and be left in peace without someone trying to kick down my sand castle. So no, ganking isn't a BIG issue for me, it's more that I see it be a constant issue on forums and such.
You don't control when someone does or doesn't gank you, and I've tried to point out the vast difference (you SHOULD BE AWARE OF) between a trade/mining/exploration vessel, even one moderately outfitted for combat, and a ganktank.
But then, I don't really imagine you would really understand because you took a CORVETTE on a distant worlds trip.
So why all the stuff about ganking being a problem? You have a perfect solution, which you use by not playing in Open.
I play in Open, I don't get attacked much & don't go looking for trouble (well, less than Morbad but presumably more than you). Playing in Open & potentially having to deal with being attacked is a way of self-limiting, similar to how ObiW described assassinating a politician in a Cobra earlier in the thread. My hauling ships probably carry less cargo than yours, my explorers probably don't jump as far, my combat ships probably have more armour than yours.
Unlike Morbad I don't seek challenge from NPCs, they are cannon fodder & my job is to kill more of them in a given amount of time than other players, to help win a war or whatever.
But imagine that as well as basic activities that mean you or I can kill more per hour, there are also activities where the bar is set so high that you or I can barely manage it at all, but Morbad can. I think if that were the case it would reward skill, and motivate others (like me & maybe you) to try to up our game.
Now unlike Morbad I don't want that difficulty all the time, I think it should be possible for almost any player to be able to achieve the same amount of influence, it would just take them longer by doing lots of easier but repetitive tasks.
But you seem to want it to be both easy and quick. Where's the challenge (fun) in that?
Last edited:
Not really. I had planned to take it to Colonia, but I'll probably just have my CMDR hitch a ride on an FC when I get around to it.
If I'm exploring, hitting more systems is hardly a downside.
As for tolerance for repetative tasks, have you ever experienced the SC handling of the Anaconda? That stretches my patience far more than having to make a few more jumps.
I didn't go into details because it's always going to be subjective to the situation.
"Trading without shields" is a good example. "Shields" in and of themselves says nothing. My CMDR trades without shields, which is safer and more profitable, if done correctly.
Don't need a powerful ship, or Enginnering. They help, to be sure, but situational awareness and sound escape tactics are vastly more important.
The only problem I have with ganking is that it's more common than it would be in a setting with more rational constraints. The same mechanisms that allow the incompetent player in the poorly configured ship to weather repeated ganks without becoming destitute is what allows gaking to be as prevalent as it is. Violence has marginal utility and consequences are lacking, which means there are no credible deterrents. All CMDRs can really do is take this into account and plan accordingly.
I don't see anything particularly out of place about 'cowardly' CMDRs. If the threats I'd like to see were present, most activities described as cowardice now would be simple prudence.
My CMDR is always prepared for a fight, but is rarely looking for trouble. Ganking is a non-issue for him and being targeted by gankers, while occasionally an annoyance, is more likely to be entertainment...a sense of danger is a rare and precious thing in this game.
I have absolute control over how I react to such encounters and everything that happens to my CMDR, that is not the direct result of a bug or cheat, is ultimately on me.
Even a 'ganktank' can't reliably down a modestly equipped vessel faster than it's likely to be able to leave. Sometimes there are exceptions, but these are uncommon. Few gankers tailor themselves to specific targets beforehand (if they did, they'd be more of a hit squad).
This is a shieldless, completely unEngineered, 48t cargo capacity, Cobra III I often have my CMDR fly:
It's about as safe as can be, and has never been come close to being shot down by anything or anyone. It's rarely even attacked, even in systems positively crawling with gankers. Few think they can catch it, and most people assume it's got 3.5k hull and a bunch of reverb mines and superpen rails. It's a sheep, in wolf's clothing, in a sheep's hat. If anyone calls the bluff (the more they know, the more likely they are to accept the illusion), it's still tough enough (a smallish wafer-thin vessel, with 1k hull plus an MRP, that goes silent the moment it submits, and doesn't just boost away in a straight line, is quite difficult to knock out in under fifteen seconds) to give my CMDR the time to escape from anything short of a crack RoA gank wing that didn't forget to strap an emissive laser to their point-man who can 420 no-scope the FSD, if they're on the ball. However, they'd also have to sneak up on my CMDR in SC first, or be waiting for him at his normal space destination, and since I'm not an idiot, this is hard to do.
I don't have many modern examples of ganker encounters when my CMDR is tooling around in non-combat-fit vessels (though I'm sure I can dig up a few), because to even be interdicted by one is already a degree of failure I rarely experience. If I'm pulled, it's because I'm ready to test my luck against someone (or in the case of the load time video in my last post, because my custom graphics settings crippled my ability to escape).
You seem to be under the impression that my CMDR is always in such a vessel and that such a vessel is somehow automatically safer than others. These would be fallacious assumptions. That Cobra above is safer even than my pure PvP Corvette loadout.
Also, the Corvette has few downsides on a journey paced as leisurely as DW, until one gets to the last leg of the trip. I did a lot of meandering around and actual exploring on the legs I participated in, and able to keep up with no difficutly, until I diverted to Colonia (which I hadn't visited yet).
Regarding the general topic of "Why are you complaining about ganking if you're primarily a solo player?"
Because we're debating game design and it's a simple example that in my opinion refutes most of Morbad's arguments.
It is if you're trying to reach a specific objective and have limited time to do it.
If you aren't trying to scan specific planets but just using it to go from A to B all you have to do is point off the star to your next jump. It doesn't meaningfully increase your travel time and in fact wildly cuts it down. To each their own.
Sure but you're not really making your case.
I think our experience is just so wildly different we can't relate. You seem to argue game design to specific situations, not the vast majority of experiences.
Ganking is some cowardly scum who wanna feel good about themselves by kicking over someone's castle on the beach. It serves no gameplay purpose, doesn't benefit the ganker, and frankly in part happens because death already is so punative...it make some people feel good to rain on someone else's day with no provocation. Honestly it creates a negative player experience and is bad for the game: dueling is fine. Challenging is fine. Pirating is fine. Ganking is a better equipped player thinking they're going to take a dump in someone's lunch without danger to themselves because they have a better equipped ship. That IS cowardly.
I think this just illustrates the difference in our thinking.
You control how you react to them, you don't control how they happen.
Depends on how it's equipped. Yeah, its not 100%. But if you can nail your target's FSD or thrusters before they can jump...it's pretty simple with all the engineering effect these days to create something that can fry even a reasonably protected trade ship before it can leave.
Also this is a stupid argument: Most of those advantages don't apply to real trade ships like a type 6 or 7 which aren't as mineable or small and hard to hit as a cobra. 48 tons of cargo isn't enough to do almost any mission I've ever seen on a mission board.
Its cool you've got this little edge case thing, but edge cases are not the majority of play experiences.
Yeah hunh. Firstly, you're telling me that most people just don't bother, not a great argument for defensibility because ganking IS incredibly common. I mean only a year or two ago I remember a situation where gankers were picking off anyone who tried to reach felicity farseer as she's a common early game and exploration focused engineer.
Again, that's not most players skill or experience. People map rocks in mining hotspots, something so totally insane to me I can barely comprehend it. That doesn't mean I could EVER do that, nor do I even have the slightest interest in trying.
This is the problem with your thinking, put simply, from a game design perspective: "Well I can do it, so anybody can."
No, I am not. Pretty sure I could slap together a ship that would tear that thing apart in well under the 15 seconds time limit, and thats assuming you were jumping to another system and I wasn't flat blocking you from reaching your destination in system. (gankings cousin, griefing.) I couldn't FLY it, because I'm not one of those people who only uses fixed weapons and flys with my mouse, but a lot of gankers do.
Play time per night which you don't seem to get. Every jump costs you an extra minute of time more or less. I think without fuel scooping it's around 48 seconds or so exactly. 40 extra jumps is 40 extra minutes out of your life needlesly that you coulda been doing something else. If you just HAVE nothing else in your life, well, I understand why you would be happy burning time that way, but I hope to god that's not most players.
Because we're debating game design and it's a simple example that in my opinion refutes most of Morbad's arguments.
It is if you're trying to reach a specific objective and have limited time to do it.
If you aren't trying to scan specific planets but just using it to go from A to B all you have to do is point off the star to your next jump. It doesn't meaningfully increase your travel time and in fact wildly cuts it down. To each their own.
Sure but you're not really making your case.
I think our experience is just so wildly different we can't relate. You seem to argue game design to specific situations, not the vast majority of experiences.
Ganking is some cowardly scum who wanna feel good about themselves by kicking over someone's castle on the beach. It serves no gameplay purpose, doesn't benefit the ganker, and frankly in part happens because death already is so punative...it make some people feel good to rain on someone else's day with no provocation. Honestly it creates a negative player experience and is bad for the game: dueling is fine. Challenging is fine. Pirating is fine. Ganking is a better equipped player thinking they're going to take a dump in someone's lunch without danger to themselves because they have a better equipped ship. That IS cowardly.
I think this just illustrates the difference in our thinking.
You control how you react to them, you don't control how they happen.
Depends on how it's equipped. Yeah, its not 100%. But if you can nail your target's FSD or thrusters before they can jump...it's pretty simple with all the engineering effect these days to create something that can fry even a reasonably protected trade ship before it can leave.
Also this is a stupid argument: Most of those advantages don't apply to real trade ships like a type 6 or 7 which aren't as mineable or small and hard to hit as a cobra. 48 tons of cargo isn't enough to do almost any mission I've ever seen on a mission board.
Its cool you've got this little edge case thing, but edge cases are not the majority of play experiences.
Yeah hunh. Firstly, you're telling me that most people just don't bother, not a great argument for defensibility because ganking IS incredibly common. I mean only a year or two ago I remember a situation where gankers were picking off anyone who tried to reach felicity farseer as she's a common early game and exploration focused engineer.
Again, that's not most players skill or experience. People map rocks in mining hotspots, something so totally insane to me I can barely comprehend it. That doesn't mean I could EVER do that, nor do I even have the slightest interest in trying.
This is the problem with your thinking, put simply, from a game design perspective: "Well I can do it, so anybody can."
No, I am not. Pretty sure I could slap together a ship that would tear that thing apart in well under the 15 seconds time limit, and thats assuming you were jumping to another system and I wasn't flat blocking you from reaching your destination in system. (gankings cousin, griefing.) I couldn't FLY it, because I'm not one of those people who only uses fixed weapons and flys with my mouse, but a lot of gankers do.
Play time per night which you don't seem to get. Every jump costs you an extra minute of time more or less. I think without fuel scooping it's around 48 seconds or so exactly. 40 extra jumps is 40 extra minutes out of your life needlesly that you coulda been doing something else. If you just HAVE nothing else in your life, well, I understand why you would be happy burning time that way, but I hope to god that's not most players.
Last edited:
[snip]
Is blocking a player in Open still a thing, does it prevent them from interacting with/ ganking on you?
Is blocking a player in Open still a thing, does it prevent them from interacting with/ ganking on you?
![[VR] Mad Mike](https://forums-cdn.zaonce.net/data/avatars/m/27/27910.jpg?1553527108){kind=avatar}
I have never done it however I believe it mostly works but it's not a guarantee. Also I don't think you can block anyone until after you have instanced with them (but again I may be wrong as it is not something I do).
If it were so punitive, that would give it gameplay purpose.
The entire point of violence is to harm the target of it. Inflicting attrition on one's foes, driving them away, impeding their ability to continue to oppose or offend, depriving them of the means and will to wage war, these are all things I expect violence between actors (individual or otherwise) to be capable of in any credible setting. It's the utility of violence that controls the expression of violence, by virtue of it's ability to impose consequence.
I'm not sure why such assessments matter. Not everyone is intent on playing a courageous character, and few players define themselves by the actions of their characters in the context of a game's setting.
My arguments are based around what the game allows and does not allow. The vast ineptitude of the majority who never bother to learn those constraints or explore what's possible within them do not strike me as a good basis for game design, though perhaps it is a good basis for product design. Indeed, I feel that the game's bar for success in most endeavors is so low that it's predominantly responsible for this behavior. When you don't need to learn anything to be wildly successful by most of the metrics the game emphasizes, it's easy to become complacent.
In my experience--as both an attacker and, much more frequently, the one being attacked--if the target has a clue and is intent on escape, they almost always will.
Dumbfires (Groms and FSD disruptors) don't retain launching ship velocity and are difficult to land at anything other than point blank range. Torpedoes are slower than hell, have an arming time, only retain rapidly diminishing momentum from the launching ship during that two second window, and only really have a chance of striking on their initial pass. Mines are borderline useless in their current incarnation because the arming time is the same as torpedoes and they are stationary...the target has two full seconds to alter trajectory. Railguns are very dangerous, if the shots can be put through the right modules, which is counter intuitively easier as ranges increase, if you can resolve the target.
To work quickly with any of these weapons, you need to be able to target your foe, which means they need to stay warm (shields and no heatsinks), or you need an emissive weapon. The latter is frequently omitted in favor of raw firepower that than can quickly be brought to bear on a panicking target. Even with a target lock, a foe that makes some attempt at positioning and distance control is very hard to hit precisely with any of these weapons in the cooldown and high-wake window. Unless the entire hostile wing is in close proximity in SC, some of them aren't going to drop in right away, and even if the interdictor is a crack shot with rails and came prepared with emissive, they will likely struggle with a target that is boosting toward them until near the moment it's time to leave.
The more common frag gankers rely on clueless targets in big ships and will usually ignore most smaller ships outright, especially if they don't appear to be piloted by a novice.
There are few ships where the points don't apply, or can't be more than compensated by others. The T-6 highly underrated. The T-7 is near the bottom rung of survivability, but can still escape most gank attempts.
Not that the T-6 or T-7 are de facto real trade ships anyway. No one ever needs to touch them, because you can go from a Sidewinder to a T-9 or Anaconda in short order.
Also, 48 tons of cargo is enough for a large fraction of trade/smuggling, salvage, and piracy missions.
You keep emphasizing the tool over the user, when the latter is the vastly more important aspect. There are some very competent gankers, I've met plenty of them. Most of them will acknowledge that a supremely well-equipped target that does all the wrong things is easier prey than an much more modest vessel whose pilot does the right things. Escape has a much lower skill floor than pulling off a successfully attack against a non-passive, non-panicking foe.
And neither ganking, nor preventing an opponent from reaching their goal with any contextual means on hand, implies greifing. A few skilled CMDR could absolutely keep mine from reaching a given destination in a soft ship, if that was their goal, but my CMDR does not need to stick around. He can, and in face of such determined opposition, should cut his losses and seek greener pastures. Rare is it when there is nowhere else to go, nothing else to do, even in BGS conflicts.
I'm fairly confident your lack of ability and comprehension in this regard is a direct result of your lack of interest.
Reaching any system requires jumping to it and if I'm exploring, most time is spent scanning, probing, and observing, not jumping, even in the shortest range vessels. DW-type events aren't races, and they plod along precisely to allow casual players with CMDRs in ill-equipped vessels to keep up and explore along the way.
Even if one is just trying to cover ground, fuel scooping with a larger scoop (anything class 5 or higher that is also at least one class bigger than the FSD involved) doesn't really add much of any time to jumping either, cause one can scoop to full or near full after each jump, before the FSD cooldown is complete, without risking much heat damage. When I tested the pace I could reliably keep up on that same trip, I managed 45 second per jump, while scooping.
However, as I've pointed out, it wasn't a race for me. If I needed to race from waypoint to way point, I could have taken the same sort of Krait Mk II loadouts that were so prevalent among the Distant Ganks crew, and had a very survivable ship (all the ones I ran into while alone escape) with three times the jump range.
I was flying the Corvette because I like the way the ship handles and because it has room for all the junk my CMDR needs to stay comfortable on extended voyages.
Now you're trying to presume how much free time others should have and place a value on it for them.
Yes, the block mechanism reliably prevents a blocked CMDR from re-instancing with yours. It also does not require that you have instanced with them before; it's possible to search for someone on the social menu and block them directly, or import names from the CMDR history file and then block them from there.
I don't like the mechanism because it gives individual players unilateral control over the instancing of all others they encounter, including those they have not blocked, by imposing their instancing filter on any instance they are part of. I also find the ability to arbitrary block others against the spirit of Open; I firmly believe it should be on Frontier to enforce their rules regarding player behavior, and not allow those who are not violating said rules, to be excluded on the arbitrary whims of others.
I am torn on the blocking thing. The fact it can negatively effect other players not directly involved in the blocking is bad.
The fact that open is open and is against the spirit of blocking is also a very valid point.... You go into open and arguably that is all that is needed to be accepting of what ever the game allows... OTOH the PGs are woefully limited with no tools to reliably make rules for the PG and has a hard limit on numbers.
Open is currently mad Max mode which I have no issue with in principle the problem is FD were going to implement multiple open modes each with their own rules. This never happened so arguably the block list is necessary.
I can see it from both sides. Ideally FD would offer the multiple open modes they outlined with at least 1 of them treating criminals much more like criminals.... But they don't. I chose to give up on open as I don't like playing with certain types.... Others use the block list and both are endorsed by FD.
Truth is I am past caring now. I have given up and just play in PG. It is a shame as it could be much better... But given how FD dealt with those caught red handed cheating the engineering before griefing in God like ships they proved they don't have the chops for dealing harsh punishment imo.
The fact that open is open and is against the spirit of blocking is also a very valid point.... You go into open and arguably that is all that is needed to be accepting of what ever the game allows... OTOH the PGs are woefully limited with no tools to reliably make rules for the PG and has a hard limit on numbers.
Open is currently mad Max mode which I have no issue with in principle the problem is FD were going to implement multiple open modes each with their own rules. This never happened so arguably the block list is necessary.
I can see it from both sides. Ideally FD would offer the multiple open modes they outlined with at least 1 of them treating criminals much more like criminals.... But they don't. I chose to give up on open as I don't like playing with certain types.... Others use the block list and both are endorsed by FD.
Truth is I am past caring now. I have given up and just play in PG. It is a shame as it could be much better... But given how FD dealt with those caught red handed cheating the engineering before griefing in God like ships they proved they don't have the chops for dealing harsh punishment imo.
Deleted member 182079
D
I blocked gankers initially (2018ish I think when I started playing in Open - I didn't know better and I needed the money! ), took them all off again eventually because I find them quite a nice challenge being in the game spicing things up a little, and honestly to run into them I need to actively seek them out anyways (such as going to CG's, or Deciat) so they are quite optional like anything in this game.
Now I only block cheaters (2 so far since - and only where it's clear they are cheating, like an SLF catching up with my speedy boy Viper 3 while I'm boosting away for example), or I'm "doing a Twitter" i.e. blocking out deeply unpleasant individuals spamming sys chat with inane, homophobic, racist, xenophobic etc. rubbish. Thankfully those only ever are a problem in CG systems, since mining hotspots are (thankfully, again, imo) a thing of the past.
), took them all off again eventually because I find them quite a nice challenge being in the game spicing things up a little, and honestly to run into them I need to actively seek them out anyways (such as going to CG's, or Deciat) so they are quite optional like anything in this game.Now I only block cheaters (2 so far since - and only where it's clear they are cheating, like an SLF catching up with my speedy boy Viper 3 while I'm boosting away for example), or I'm "doing a Twitter" i.e. blocking out deeply unpleasant individuals spamming sys chat with inane, homophobic, racist, xenophobic etc. rubbish. Thankfully those only ever are a problem in CG systems, since mining hotspots are (thankfully, again, imo) a thing of the past.
I get the trolling post, but you could not explore and was not able to mine in 2014 when I started playing btw.
Well Morbad, I appreciate your calm and logical discussion, but you and I are also proceeding from totally different precepts and experiences, and I don't see how the changes you would want benefit the game or overwhelming majority of the player base.
And as I said, I don't really respect your desire for intended changes after you acknowledged you weren't interested in offering a greater challenge to those who want it without affecting the play experience of the majority.
Cheers gang.
And as I said, I don't really respect your desire for intended changes after you acknowledged you weren't interested in offering a greater challenge to those who want it without affecting the play experience of the majority.
Cheers gang.