Could ATR ships be added to waypoints for expeditions like DW?

[jasonbarron]

And you're not biased at all in this regard

They kicked out the right people. The same people claiming to be trustworthy took very little convincing for a 180 into murder county. They have showed their true colours.

If I had organised it, I would have been the dunce that would have included all those people, because I am a naive little donkey, and would have been told: how could you have been so stupid to have trusted them?

I wasn't talking about myself, though that was a mistake on their part imo. I have well publicized ties to GCI and various nefarious/infamous PvP groups and have extolled their virtues loudly enough for years on this forum, just to name a few considerations. On the other hand I've never attacked another explorer in this game (until now), including notable locations such as Beagle Point on the original DWE where a I sat on the surface with as many top explorers as could fit in an instance. You can't put this on me "showing my true colors," no matter how tempting it is; if I wanted to be a I could have hulked out on the original DWE and ruined it if the was my thing, which it wasn't. Until the day I was kicked from the group and referred to repeatedly as "people of your ilk" and other such pleasantries I've never been anything less then a friend to (and a member of) the exploration community. But that's all besides the point: Fleetcomm mass kicked people that don't have anything even comparable to my ties to the Open PvP crowd, and any suggestion otherwise is either based on ignorance or an outright lie.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

I wasn't talking about myself, though that was a mistake on their part imo. I have well publicized ties to GCI and various nefarious/infamous PvP groups and have extolled their virtues loudly enough for years on this forum, just to name a few considerations. On the other hand I've never attacked another explorer in this game (until now), including notable locations such as Beagle Point on the original DWE where a I sat on the surface with as many top explorers as could fit in an instance. You can't put this on me "showing my true colors," no matter how tempting it is; if I wanted to be a I could have hulked out on the original DWE and ruined it if the was my thing, which it wasn't. Until the day I was kicked from the group and referred to repeatedly as "people of your ilk" and other such pleasantries I've never been anything less then a friend to (and a member of) the exploration community.

I will hazard a guess that most of the explorers you shot down have done noting wrong to you. In fact, many of them wouldn't even know you.

Said this before, you have a beef with certain people, and you're taking it out on anyone associated with the event they're organising. I call that showing your true colours. The speed with which you turned showed your true colours. The glee and gloating you displayed on shooting down explorers who had nothing to do with kicking you out, is showing your true colours. If that is what a friend looks like, who needs enemies?

edit: if on the other hand you would have targetted specifically those CMDRs you feel wronged by, and let go all those who weren't involved, you would have some credibility in this regard. I'd still feel it would be petty, but at least it wouldn't be hypocritical.

But that's all besides the point: Fleetcomm mass kicked people that don't have anything even comparable to my ties to the Open PvP crowd, and any suggestion otherwise is either based on ignorance or an outright lie.

That's odd. Since there are players from the Open PvP crowd active on DWE2.

Did you mean the ganker crowd?

 

[jasonbarron]

I will hazard a guess that most of the explorers you shot down have done noting wrong to you. In fact, many of them wouldn't even know you.

Said this before, you have a beef with certain people, and you're taking it out on anyone associated with the event they're organising. I call that showing your true colours. The speed with which you turned showed your true colours. The glee and gloating you displayed on shooting down explorers who had nothing to do with kicking you out, is showing your true colours. If that is what a friend looks like, who needs enemies?

edit: if on the other hand you would have targetted specifically those CMDRs you feel wronged by, and let go all those who weren't involved, you would have some credibility in this regard. I'd still feel it would be petty, but at least it wouldn't be hypocritical.

That's odd. Since there are players from the Open PvP crowd active on DWE2.

Did you mean the ganker crowd?

So, no apology for treating me disrespectfully, turning away an ally who would be right there alongside Ziljan running interference for you guys? Because that's how it would have been. No big deal though, I've always been excruciatingly up-front about being a player who adapts and plays the entire game, so this just represents an adjustment.

Oh, and don't worry about the seeming difficulty associated with getting a hold of the DWE admins, Ziggy. There's a loooong ways to go yet. Eventually I'll finish plowing my way through the cannon fodder and get my fingers around the neck(s) of my quarry. And knowing that I'm part of a group that's literally destroyed thousands of them has a kind of collateral "splash terror effect" that will have to satisfy me in the meantime. You can deny that until you're blue in the face, but if it were true you wouldn't be constantly engaging and denigrating me on the forum

 

[babelfisch]

Is there any reason why FDev should embark on that project, whilst the in-game mechanics they've already provided aren't being utilised?

Probably not. As said above, I believe this thread is pointless.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

So, no apology for treating me disrespectfully, turning away an ally who would be right there alongside Ziljan running interference for you guys? Because that's how it would have been. No big deal though, I've always been excruciatingly up-front about being a player who adapts and plays the entire game, so this just represents an adjustment.

Oh, and don't worry about the seeming difficulty associated with getting a hold of the DWE admins, Ziggy. There's a loooong ways to go yet. Eventually I'll finish plowing my way through the cannon fodder and get my fingers around the neck(s) of my quarry. And knowing that I'm part of a group that's literally destroyed thousands of them has a kind of collateral "splash terror effect" that will have to satisfy me in the meantime. You can deny that until you're blue in the face, but if it were true you wouldn't be constantly engaging and denigrating me on the forum

I am not denigrating you. I am being realistic in my assesment. You forget to address the bit where you are shooting explorers who never did anything wrong to you. You know, the point I was making. It seems you can't, because you know it's right. Now those former "friends" of you are cannon fodder. No darling, the organisers were right about you. And I in turn was wrong about you.

When I first heard you were kicked from discord, my initial reaction was: no way! Why? Would even have suggested to vouch for you. Next thing I read is you cackling about shooting down explorers.

What a donkey I was!

And to contrast, this was me before:
https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showt...-up-for-DWE2?p=7328569&viewfull=1#post7328569

What a donkey I was! [haha]

 

[babelfisch]

That'll be handled by the next update - Elite Dangerous: Jury Duty

Two gankers, two carebears and T.j. in the middle?

 

[babelfisch]

Probably the most poignant comment in the thread. :|

Poignant. Well at least I learned a new word! Just need to figure out how to pronounce it.

 

[babelfisch]

It might be a slight exaggeration, but only by a teensy bit. Fleetcomm's attitude about membership was extremely paranoid and they kicked a lot of people on even the suggestion of a suspicion.

Well at least they didn't chose Harry Potter as their bodyguard...

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Two gankers, two carebears and T.j. in the middle?

Thinking oO("Clowns to the left of me, jokers to the right, and only got myself to blame")

 

[NeilF]

Yes, it makes perfect sense both from a game and a universe point of view.

Thank you...

And from a game point of view, if this happens, then the explorers (if they wanted to reclaim the system) should get together a group of players that are willing to fight for it and sort it out. Why would police or ATR care about an empty system thousands of light years away and out of their jurisdiction?

Huh? I think we've taken a wrong turn somewhere

Here's my original four points so we can set the scene for the suggestion(s) being made...

Spoiler

Well, to me a couple of smallish steps could give logical effective results.

1) A reputation value (call it Pilots Federation Reputation if you will) is incremented with any illegal destruction you carry out. This value takes considerable time to decay. eg: Weeks... And it only reduces with time...

2) Once this reputation value gets to a reasonable level punishments are applied. So a few illegal destructions over a given period are ignored. But once you start acting like a habitual psycho, you get noticed. The more you continue the more punishments are applied to you.

3) Punishments could vary from more and more stations and indeed whole systems denying you access. To you being highlighted to other Pilots Federation members (on their scanner) immediately as a threat (known psycho). To the ATR turning up more and more often in your instance. To a Pilots Federation Bounty being applied to you to make you a legal target everywhere.

4) Non-government/No Population systems should default to "Security: None" not "Security: Anarchy". Only systems with an anarchy government can enforce an anarchy system. Thus at Beagle Point, "illegally" destroying a CMDR will be noticed rather than ignored.

There...

So let's follow through a scenario as a discussion piece?

Scenario
In a very remote location 6000ly from the bubble, a new exploration site is found and lots and lots of CMDRs primarily in exploration ships head over there to look. I head over there in a fully engineered PvP ship and spend night after night popping into instances and simply finding any CMDRs in flight, or on the groud, and generally blowing up as many as I can.

1) Current Outcome - Nothing. I get no negative effect at all. Indeed the fresh batch of CMDRs I find each night know nothing about my previous activity.

2) With The Proposal - Because the system is "Security: None" as there's no government (instead of defaulting to "Security: Anarchy"), my "illegal" destructions of other CMDRs are reported back to the bubble and a negative Pilots Federation reputation slowly grows. After a few destruction are ignored, the habitual nature of it is noticed by the Pilots Federation (ie: my score finally gets high enough) so then more and more penalties are applied to me (see my suggestions above). It might well be the ATR is deemed too far away to included in these penalties so they won't turn up, but other penalties will be applied. If the location was closer to the bubble then maybe the ATR would turn up more and more often in my instance as my reputation gets worse and worse. But the ATR would just be one of many penalties and outcomes applied to me as my reputation gets worse...


Which of those two approaches makes the most sense from a game universe and/or a game play point of view?

 

[Kaocraft]

So, no apology for treating me disrespectfully, turning away an ally who would be right there alongside Ziljan running interference for you guys? Because that's how it would have been. No big deal though, I've always been excruciatingly up-front about being a player who adapts and plays the entire game, so this just represents an adjustment.

Oh, and don't worry about the seeming difficulty associated with getting a hold of the DWE admins, Ziggy. There's a loooong ways to go yet. Eventually I'll finish plowing my way through the cannon fodder and get my fingers around the neck(s) of my quarry. And knowing that I'm part of a group that's literally destroyed thousands of them has a kind of collateral "splash terror effect" that will have to satisfy me in the meantime. You can deny that until you're blue in the face, but if it were true you wouldn't be constantly engaging and denigrating me on the forum

“I am a great warrior. Let me help you. Let me join you. It’s a dangerous world out there and I can protect you.”
”No thanks, you seem like a bit of a loose cannon and we’re not sure we can trust you.”
”Deny ME, will you? I’ll kill you. So help me I’ll hunt you to the ends of the earth, leaving a trail of bodies in my wake.”

Did I summarize the situation correctly?

 

[jasonbarron]

I am not denigrating you. I am being realistic in my assesment. You forget to address the bit where you are shooting explorers who never did anything wrong to you. You know, the point I was making. It seems you can't, because you know it's right. Now those former "friends" of you are cannon fodder. No darling, the organisers were right about you. And I in turn was wrong about you.

When I first heard you were kicked from discord, my initial reaction was: no way! Why? Would even have suggested to vouch for you. Next thing I read is you cackling about shooting down explorers.

What a donkey I was!

And to contrast, this was me before:
https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showt...-up-for-DWE2?p=7328569&viewfull=1#post7328569

What a donkey I was! [haha]

I'll tell you the same thing publicly here that I've been saying privately, too: I appreciate that you've stuck up for me, I really do, and that you have (in the past) considered me a person of decent moral character. We've been "frienemies" for years now, and as far as I'm concerned that hasn't changed on my end. It's kinda sad that you now are willing to brush aside my own denigration (and continually heap on your own to boot) as a causative agent in current events, but I'm going to chalk it up to you being genuinely mad in real life, as opposed to my own attitude which does not extend beyond game parameters. Hopefully you find it in your heart to back up a step and cool off a little.

o7

 

[jasonbarron]

“I am a great warrior. Let me help you. Let me join you. It’s a dangerous world out there and I can protect you.”
”No thanks, you seem like a bit of a loose cannon and we’re not sure we can trust you.”
”Deny ME, will you? I’ll kill you. So help me I’ll hunt you to the ends of the earth, leaving a trail of bodies in my wake.”

Did I summarize the situation correctly?

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

I'll tell you the same thing publicly here that I've been saying privately, too: I appreciate that you've stuck up for me, I really do, and that you have (in the past) considered me a person of decent moral character. We've been "frienemies" for years now, and as far as I'm concerned that hasn't changed on my end. It's kinda sad that you now are willing to brush aside my own denigration (and continually heap on your own to boot) as a causative agent in current events, but I'm going to chalk it up to you being genuinely mad in real life, as opposed to my own attitude which does not extend beyond game parameters. Hopefully you find it in your heart to back up a step and cool off a little.

o7

Heheh, nice try. You are after DWE2 for out of game parameters, which is what you told me privately. Discord and your dealing with the organisers is out of game. You're taking it in game. Guilt by association will never fly in my book. Which is why I would have vouched. But it's hard to maintain that when you yourself remove the "by association" from that equation. And in turn start to guilt by association yourself.

If I'm mad about anything it's that my previously held and preferred notions are proven naive. That the cynical approach is the right one. That I am slightly mad about. But that's on me. I'm the banana tree.

 

[jasonbarron]

Heheh, nice try. You are after DWE2 for out of game parameters, which is what you told me privately. Discord and your dealing with the organisers is out of game. You're taking it in game. Guilt by association will never fly in my book. Which is why I would have vouched. But it's hard to maintain that when you yourself remove the "by association" from that equation. And in turn start to guilt by association yourself.

If I'm mad about anything it's that my previously held and preferred notions are proven naive. That the cynical approach is the right one. That I am slightly mad about. But that's on me. I'm the banana tree.

So now discussions in forum subs and discord channels literally dedicated to organizing the game aren't considered "in the game" for all practical purposes? That does strike me as a bit odd and certainly not the way I look at it.

 

[Maolagin]

It is ironic how many of the "griefers" seem like the nicer chaps IRL than many of the explorers, based on the vitriol in this and related threads.

Meh, I wouldn't read too much into that. It's the standard "tone policing" fallacy: the person complaining about something will usually sound less "agreeable" than the person being complained about. Both because they may be on a shorter fuse since they are already frustrated about something, and because the mere act of complaining makes people (on average) view them less sympathetically. It's good practice to avoid letting that color your evaluation of the underlying complaints.

 

[TheMegaTurnip]

Heheh, nice try. You are after DWE2 for out of game parameters, which is what you told me privately. Discord and your dealing with the organisers is out of game. You're taking it in game. Guilt by association will never fly in my book. Which is why I would have vouched. But it's hard to maintain that when you yourself remove the "by association" from that equation. And in turn start to guilt by association yourself.

If I'm mad about anything it's that my previously held and preferred notions are proven naive. That the cynical approach is the right one. That I am slightly mad about. But that's on me. I'm the banana tree.

Ziggy I hate to say it fella, but you don't half come across as a troll sometimes.

 

[Crank Larson]

Huh? I think we've taken a wrong turn somewhere

To be clear, it makes perfect sense (to me) that I could go to the next exploration site of interest (in an unpopulated system) and destroy every CMDR that ever turns up there over and over and over and never incur a negative outcome.

So 1.

 

[TheMegaTurnip]

Meh, I wouldn't read too much into that. It's the standard "tone policing" fallacy: the person complaining about something will usually sound less "agreeable" than the person being complained about. Both because they may be on a shorter fuse since they are already frustrated about something, and because the mere act of complaining makes people (on average) view them less sympathetically. It's good practice to avoid letting that color your evaluation of the underlying complaints.

No... Thats called not letting your intial emotive reaction rule over logic and reason.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Ziggy I hate to say it fella, but you don't half come across as a troll sometimes.

How dare you! [mad]

I will double my efforts.

edit: that is one hell of a nicely worded sentence though. I want to marry it and have it's babies.