It's time to revisit the PVP rebuy. Distant Ganks 2 makes the point.

[Zed]

*munches popcorn*

I can't wait to hear the answer...

Well the answer came quick but reads more like a design brief rather than a list of compromises.

 

[Jack Schitt]

PVP before engineers was so much better balanced and allowed for traders to put up a valid and in most situations dangerous defence.

Fair enough, I will defer to your much greater knowledge of PVP because my direct experience of it runs to maybe a couple of hours if that. Engineering definitely made things much worse to a ridiculous degree, but that imbalance was always there. Maybe not to the degree I may have implied with that unqualified qualifier though. It was more to defuse the comments from those who believe Engineering to be the only thing that "broke" PVP, because for me it was never wholly solid to begin with.

But as I said, that's my subjective interpretation. I would derive no pleasure from being the victim nor the aggressor in a game that allows unpredictable asymmetric combat between strangers, regardless of the degree of asymmetry, so it's not something with which I engage. For those who enjoy, and/or have enjoyed, PVP in ED I appreciate that the introduction of Engineering must have been more impactful than it was for someone who never bothered with it.

 

[Stealthie]

Just like with the Gnosis event, where all the CMDRs equipped AX weapons and used sturdier ships after galnet published news about Thargoid Hydra interceptors in the region?

Well, I guess you can lead a horse to water...

Personally, that's exactly what I did for the Gnosis.
I swear, I had something aproaching a billion credits of kit for my Annie stored aboard the Gnosis - and I even had the foresight to fit the fighty stuff the night before it "jumped".

Had my hull knocked down to something like 20% before I could launch, jumped into SC, low-waked, fired-up the AFMU and repair limpets and then went back in.
That's when I realised that CMDRs were getting bounties for shooting at 'goids who were attacking the Gnosis and that a bunch of CMDRs were attacking other ships rather than the 'goids.
That's when I decided to call it a day.

 

[Deleted member 115407]

I have no idea whether the build proves you right, so I'll take your word for it. But all of those seem to be focused on being able to gank (a group of explorers in this case). So yeah, I can see how that decision dictates some changes.

If you're not carrying a Planet Probe Thrower, you have no business being outside of the Bubble as far as I'm concerned. You step in the kitchen, you throw some probes at the coffeemachine.

I had to sacrifice the DSS for other stuff. So no probing for me on the expedition, unfortunately.

If I run across anything that needs a closer look, I'll let you cats know.

 

[WorldsGreatestForumDad]

I understand the whole point about how if people fly in open, etc.

I was just responding to what you said.

The comment where i came in on this though was a point about how open only PP won't stop gankers ganking and having a dig of those who pull out the dangerous meme while not facing any danger themselves (ie: gankers).

Pretty interesting point of view you have there. I guess you forgot about Stef and Citadel patrolling and drove me out of the system.

Maybe thats because the gankers that are supposed to be facing danger from others that dont fight back themselves. Not relying on NPC's 100% of the time.

They come to the forums to complain about gankers instead of using the engineering thats available to everyone. And its not new people, its people that have been playing for years.

God forbid someone defends themselves in this game.

The only options you guys give out is;

#1 Use the modes.

#2 Complain someone is better than you.

#3 Say its a playstyle rather accepting that it was always an integrated part of this game

#4 Blame others because someone picked open play, and then used a crappy build. Eventually using arguments 1-3

#5 Use the report button after a ganker defends themselves being called an at by the carebear that got killed. Which for some reason is acceptable around here.

Ganking is not a bad term. Ganking happens in lots of games, I gank lanes in League, I gank supply lines in Guildwars 2. There are reasons for it. Its not a bad term. I wish people would stop using that as a bad term. Because its not.

(For the record, I have no issues with people using the modes for personal progression, storyline stuff, exploring or whatever. If I know I will be using a subpar ship. Im not stupid enough to go into open and then complain about my loss with it.)

 

[voidwalker]

Sorry, but i have real trouble understanding what you are trying to say here and how it counters the point i'm making. Correct, they are not presenting any danger because to do so, they would need to be flying a combat kitted ship, not an exploration kitted ship.

And look at how many in DW2 are flying ships that even if kitted for combat would provide little risk for any attacker. We have people in all sorts of ships. Is your advice to not fly those ships?

Woah! That brazen display of wilful ignorance much? I didn't say the explorers should kit up for combat, I said arrange a security detail. If this isn't wilful ignorance, then try paying attention.

My Sidewinder is fit for exploration as well. And yet, despite gank attempts against it, it's never been ganked. I wonder why? And even if it is ganked, it's a Sidewinder. Cheap loss. "What about my exploration data", I hear you ask? What about it? That's a bonus. My objective is to explore, to see places and things and have new experiences out in the middle of nowhere, where no man or women has been before.

The simple fact of the matter is, if the gankers can keep up with DW2 in non-exploration ships, there's no practical reason why someone can't fly security. And even if they pose "little risk", at least you can no longer argue that it's "no risk". At the end of the day though, it still all comes down to choice, and despite every attempt to obfuscate this, you have said absolutely nothing that refutes it.

 

[Staarlord]

DW2 has reintroduced the argument of PVE Open to the forums in a big way.

FDEV seems unwilling or unable to embrace a PVE Open server.

So the PVE community is stuck with the Private Group solution, with the overflow being grist for the mill in Open.

One of the core features of a collaborative PVE experience is that it shared between players with similar goals and expectations.

PG population caps, related instancing restrictions, and being pk targets all reduce the basic biochemical reward for positive social interaction that is a reasonable expectation of an MMO experience.

PVP players are simply playing within the rules outlined by FDEV when they attack any other player within Open instances.

The PVP players are NOT the reason that PVE players are restricted from a collaborative positve social experience.

The game design has established these conditions.

Currently, the consequences for PVP character death represent an insurance rebuy, loss of all exploration data, loss of cargo, loss of all missions, loss of all bounties, loss of all combat bonds, and a reset of your ship to the last station visited.

It is fair to say that the threat of character death at the hands of NPCs or pilot error is VASTLY LOWER than the threat of character death by an actual PVP player.

The consequences of character death seem appropriately punishing given the minimal threat in solo or PG.

So the calculation a player must make is:

Is my desire for collaborative positive social interaction worth the loss of personal time the threat of PVP death represents?

FDEV has demonstrated a passion for design that prolongs player time on repetitive tasks.

FDEV has embraced the model that players will accept the character death risk because the biochemcial reward is such a positive incentive.

FDEV likes pvp player death because it demands a players invest more time in the game to recover from the setback.

In my opinion, this is an extremely sinister and mean spirited design.

My plea to FDEV is that they reconsider the heavy handed rebuy and character losses for PVP deaths.

It is probably too late to develop a PVE Open offering, but it is certainly not too late to reduce the costs of PVP death.

I agree, fully, that there should be PVE servers, but, in a sort of exciting way, I believe that if there's ever a DW3, they should do a couple things differently:
A.) Everyone involved plays in Open servers
B.) Commission fighters(security) to go along (fully kitted Condas, Vettes, etc.)
C.) Because fighters aren't long range/ long range jumpers, everyone agrees on a standard jump distance so that the fighters stay with the group, to protect them. This means people willing to sacrifice their time, and data, for the well being of the initiative.

Also, all fighters should house SLF, and that experimental effect that charges allies shielding(can't recall what this is called).

 

[Jereaca]

It amuses me how many people solution to PvP for players who want to PvE is "learn2pvp"

This is not a solution it is ignoring the desires of the PvE players. The solution is not to survive a PvP encounter but to never have one in the first place. PG is a partial solution but not an ideal one, as has been said before people can and have infiltrated them specifically to kill people. To placate people who say it can't be open with out PvP call it some thing else.

For the people who say it wrecks realism etc. DON'T USE IT. It is really that simple. Yes you will have to take steps in the coding to stop exploits(ramming in stations etc), longer term you monitor the complaints and logs and if you find people exploiting to kill other players you ban the account and patch the exploit. What is so impossible about this?

Have a pop up as you load what ever you call the PvE mode, this mode is for PvE activity if you engage in actions to deliberately cause damage or destruction of other players action will be taken against your account upto and including a permanent ban from the game. Fair warning to all.

 

[voidwalker]

It amuses me how many people solution to PvP for players who want to PvE is "learn2pvp"

This is not a solution it is ignoring the desires of the PvE players. The solution is not to survive a PvP encounter but to never have one in the first place. PG is a partial solution but not an ideal one, as has been said before people can and have infiltrated them specifically to kill people. To placate people who say it can't be open with out PvP call it some thing else.

For the people who say it wrecks realism etc. DON'T USE IT. It is really that simple. Yes you will have to take steps in the coding to stop exploits(ramming in stations etc), longer term you monitor the complaints and logs and if you find people exploiting to kill other players you ban the account and patch the exploit. What is so impossible about this?

Have a pop up as you load what ever you call the PvE mode, this mode is for PvE activity if you engage in actions to deliberately cause damage or destruction of other players action will be taken against your account upto and including a permanent ban from the game. Fair warning to all.

There are many solutions, all of them a matter of choice. If you choose not to learn to defend yourself, that's your choice. If you choose to play in Open, that's also your choice. If you make those choices, and get killed by a player, you don't get to complain that the game didn't give you a choice. Open has been designed for player interaction, whatever form that might take. You don't reinforce that by placing restrictions on said interaction. But because of that interaction, because of the risk other players pose, the NPCs have been nerfed into the ground, meaning there is no risk in PVE alone.

Which is why I'd be happy with a compromise. You can have your PVE mode, but on the condition that we get the old, challenging NPCs back. The ones that would interdict you for 'no reason' (ie marauders, reavers, people that just wanna watch the world burn, etc), make them harder than the ones in Open.

No one is ignoring the desire of PVE players. All we're saying is, you have options. You're free to make choices. That's the best thing about this game, your freedom. It's those choices, however, that ultimately result in all this complaining. It's like lighting your curtains on fire, and then complaining when your house burns down. It's dumb. There's no other word for it. No one is telling you what to do when they say you should learn to PVP. They're offering you good advice, options. They're suggesting you don't light your curtains on fire.

 

[Morbad]

Such as ...?

Inderdictors.

I would never put an interdictor on a combat ship.

If you're not carrying a Planet Probe Thrower, you have no business being outside of the Bubble as far as I'm concerned. You step in the kitchen, you throw some probes at the coffeemachine.

The ship my CMDR is in now doesn't have a DSS.

The FSS tells me everything that the DSS told me before 3.3. I don't need what the DSS reveals to make exploration worthwhile and in the case of my combat explorer setup, I consider it as much wasted space as I do an interdictor.

If I'm really curious about something, I'm capable of tracking down someone with a DSS to do the scans for me, or finding things the hard way.

It amuses me how many people solution to PvP for players who want to PvE is "learn2pvp"

Is this incongruous somehow?

Both in games, and in reality, avoiding violent encounters becomes much easier once one has a basic proficiency with violence.

The solution is not to survive a PvP encounter but to never have one in the first place. PG is a partial solution but not an ideal one, as has been said before people can and have infiltrated them specifically to kill people.

The odds of encountering direct PvP in private groups that don't allow it are miniscule.

Yes you will have to take steps in the coding to stop exploits(ramming in stations etc), longer term you monitor the complaints and logs and if you find people exploiting to kill other players you ban the account and patch the exploit. What is so impossible about this?

Nothing is impossible about this, but it probably doesn't come close to satisfying the cost/benefit ratio Frontier would need to find it worthwhile to implement.

 

[Hanerib]

I wonder if they'll go to Conflux exodus sites. No stations nearby. It's quite entertaining really. Decent Twitch views too. This game is hilarious and weird.

 

[Tel Prydain]

The biggest issue is that there's a massive disconnect between what people think this game is. The sad basement dwellers, neckbeards and forum dads think that it's a roleplay or simulation that lets you experience a fabulous future existence in whatever role you chose, meanwhile the coked-up, psychopathic kids think it's "LOL vidyaGames".
One of the former might expect possible pirates if they're trading, but they would also expect a pirate at somewhat of a default level and that they might mitigate that risk by offering cargo to the pirate. What they tend not to expect is a pimped out murder hobo who'll pop them for lolz, no matter how much cargo they drop.
A lot of the disquiet comes from the fact that PvP'ers are playing a vidyagame, and have no interest in explaining their actions or fitting in with the 'world' of elite. Why follow DW2 and shoot people who don't quite understand the game options? Because, Lol - that's why.

Fixing PvP isn't as easy as just having a PvE mode... because I love being pirated. Or blockaded. Or chased away from someone's home territory. I'm a fan of player engagement even if it leads to a rebuy. What I think is dumb are those who swoop in, pew-pew and vanish for no reason.

Yep, thats elite dangerous
The entire game should have been open only from the start.

. The original kickstarter suggested there would be an offline mode. Always open was never the plan.

Why not wing up and try to actually fight back? You know, strength in numbers?

This is suggested over and over, but it's a non-starter for two reasons.

It just doesn't work. The Premonition event proved that the real dangers are instancing and the borked loading which will often separate the escort from the desired target. Even if all the loading and instancing magically lines up, there's still little an escort can do to stop a focused attacker from popping a PvE equipped ship. This is amplified when the aggressor doesn't mind dying as long as they get the gank - so self preservation isn't an issue.

PVP before engineers was so much better balanced and allowed for traders to put up a valid and in most situations dangerous defense.
The reason being is that while they had to make a comprise in turn for cargo space, the compromise was smaller and would result in a 90% viable PVP build.
This is one of the reasons that Code was so strong back in the day. Their PVP pirate ships were 98% full meta PVP ships. Only difference externally was maybe the number of shield boster and chaff. Internally, they swapped cell banks for additional cargo, hatch breakers and later collectors.

This is actually an amazingly good point.
Obviously those obsessed with PvP will have max roles and, equally obvious, newbies and casual players won't. The gulf means that the old meta is gone forever.

 

[Jereaca]

There are many solutions, all of them a matter of choice. If you choose not to learn to defend yourself, that's your choice. If you choose to play in Open, that's also your choice. If you make those choices, and get killed by a player, you don't get to complain that the game didn't give you a choice. Open has been designed for player interaction, whatever form that might take. You don't reinforce that by placing restrictions on said interaction. But because of that interaction, because of the risk other players pose, the NPCs have been nerfed into the ground, meaning there is no risk in PVE alone.

Which is why I'd be happy with a compromise. You can have your PVE mode, but on the condition that we get the old, challenging NPCs back. The ones that would interdict you for 'no reason' (ie marauders, reavers, people that just wanna watch the world burn, etc), make them harder than the ones in Open.

No one is ignoring the desire of PVE players. All we're saying is, you have options. You're free to make choices. That's the best thing about this game, your freedom. It's those choices, however, that ultimately result in all this complaining. It's like lighting your curtains on fire, and then complaining when your house burns down. It's dumb. There's no other word for it. No one is telling you what to do when they say you should learn to PVP. They're offering you good advice, options. They're suggesting you don't light your curtains on fire.

Hence the reason most games seperate the PvP and PvE, the only time I tend to go into open is if I am doing some fuel ratting, social game play that I truly enjoy. But it is not worth it dealing with ganker types. My first exposure to PvP in this game was a seal clubber when I had about 1 or 2 hours in. Starter ship just did the tutorials and started... Yeah that went well......

I had thought about trying PvP but that had soured me permanently on it for this game,. The devs allow seal clubs to exist they care nothing about balance so I won't participate. This is a great game but open is the worst aspect of it.

Your idea of compromise is to make PvE harder? Why? are you trying to drive targets back to PvP? Are you saying that the game is too easy? If so should the PvE threats be turned up in open too?
(Realistically yeah I think it needs to be tuned upwards a bit but let's be very careful doing so, it can be a fine line between challenge and fustration)

I am saying make a new mode so that the current open mode can stay the same. I am not saying apply retrictions to open, but make a new PvE mode.

The solution is to not play in open and be careful in PvE PG. I get that. I am saying to you the desire is not to survive PvP, it is to not have PvP. The current PG "solution" is not ideal, PvP still happens in the PvE PG, it is tried to be regulated by a very dedicated group of volunteers, as best they can. I simply think it would be better if Frontier actually stepped up and did it themselves.

 

[voidwalker]

Hence the reason most games seperate the PvP and PvE, the only time I tend to go into open is if I am doing some fuel ratting, social game play that I truly enjoy. But it is not worth it dealing with ganker types. My first exposure to PvP in this game was a seal clubber when I had about 1 or 2 hours in. Starter ship just did the tutorials and started... Yeah that went well......

I had thought about trying PvP but that had soured me permanently on it for this game,. The devs allow seal clubs to exist they care nothing about balance so I won't participate. This is a great game but open is the worst aspect of it.

Your idea of compromise is to make PvE harder? Why? are you trying to drive targets back to PvP? Are you saying that the game is too easy? If so should the PvE threats be turned up in open too?
(Realistically yeah I think it needs to be tuned upwards a bit but let's be very careful doing so, it can be a fine line between challenge and fustration)

I am saying make a new mode so that the current open mode can stay the same. I am not saying apply retrictions to open, but make a new PvE mode.

The solution is to not play in open and be careful in PvE PG. I get that. I am saying to you the desire is not to survive PvP, it is to not have PvP. The current PG "solution" is not ideal, PvP still happens in the PvE PG, it is tried to be regulated by a very dedicated group of volunteers, as best they can. I simply think it would be better if Frontier actually stepped up and did it themselves.

Elite isn't 'most games', it's Elite. If I wanted 'most games' I'd play them instead.

Once again, like everyone else, you're missing the point. The devs do care about balance. All the tools they've provided us are pretty well balanced, with a few relatively minor issues, but overall, not bad. But that's all they do, they give you the tools. You CHOOSE how to use them. The balance between players is up to the players. The balance between the TOOLS the players use is up to the devs. So don't foist your responsibility for your own experience on the tools the devs have provided for you.

My idea to make PVE harder is because right now, it's completely risk-free. Yes, the game is too easy. Without players, the game is way too easy. And yes, I agree that the PVE in open could be turned up, considering how rare encounters with other players actually are. The example we have here is an exception, it's a player event, a gank-magnet so to speak. The organisers an players involved in that event should have known the attention it would attract, and mitigated the risk factors accordingly.

I understand the desire not to have PVP. That's fine. That's why I play other games. One of my favourites at the moment is BattleTech, Ace Combat 7 lands in a few days, and MechWarrior 5 later this year. Thats gonna be a real treat! I don't play Elite for the PVP, either, I play it for the PVE. I mostly explore. The thing is, I know that playing in open carries the risk of PVP, and instead off demanding the game change to suit my playstyle, I adapted my playstyle to suit the game. I didn't have to. I could have chosen to consider being defenceless but instead, I learned how the gankers work, I learned strategies and tactics to avoid/evade them, and even when necessary, fight them, and since 2016, I've lost one Anaconda to PVP, and nothing else. I lost that Anaconda on a Mars Yurip live stream too. I can't remember which one, but it was checking out a guardian site, some gankers showed up and I hadn't arrived yet. Mars hid under some ship wreckage in his SRV with his lights turned off, and the gankers couldn't find him. When I arrived in my armed exploration 'conda, I laid into the first target I came across as a distraction to try to help Mars escape. The engagement was entirely one sided, with multiple ships engaging me very quickly. I attempted to climb out, and in so doing, lure them a bit further away from Mars, but I knew my ship was lost and didn't bother trying to low-wake. I didn't care. It was fun. I was the sacrificial hero, trying to save a mate.

And that's why I stay in open. Because the PVP, even when it's 'seal clubbers', can be great for story telling, can be very dynamic, and loads of fun. But even if it's not, even if you don't want to PVP, that doesn't mean that you don't have the option to learn how it's done, and learn how to counter it. This effort to get a PVE-only open mode looks to me nothing more than laziness. "I don't want to therefore I shouldn't have to". Well, to that I say, you're right, you don't have to. It'd be in your best interests to, though, because there's no way frontier are going to introduce a pve-only mode. Do you know what that requires? Do you have any understanding of the server infrastructure for this game?

I'll be honest, though. If losing one ship sours you on the PVP, then maybe you should stick to mobile games anyway. Just uninstall Elite, it might not be for you. How many ships have you lost to NPCs, by the way? It's a grand total of one, for me, ever since I started playing, which as a backer, means from the very beginning. It was a Hauler. I was exploring, and got grabbed by one of those old marauder-types that just interdict you and start blasting. Was I annoyed? Yeah, of course I was, had a pile of exploration data I was bringing back from the Andromeda constellation. And guess what? I made some adjustments to my build, and went straight back out and got new data, came back, evaded a few interdictions, docked up, got paid, and my name on a bunch of systems for it.

But this is Elite. If one ship loss, to any enemy, is enough to 'sour' you permanently, then you haven't got the right attitude for the game to begin with. Every time you undock a ship, you should consider yourself in extreme danger, even if you are not apparently so. Because that's how you avoid the worst, by assuming it, and learning to deal with it, be that through combat or escape.

I, too, PVE in Elite. I play it the way I want, and nobody stops me, despite trying. I get everything I want to do done, and always successfully accomplish the objectives I've set for myself, barring the occasional bug in the game. And I do it all in open, exclusively.

Why can't you? Why are you letting the gankers dictate the way you play? Because you might not realise it, but they are the motivation for your choice to segregate yourself into another server mode. You are LETTING them dictate you out of open. Why?

 

[M00ka]

… snip ...

Once again, like everyone else, you're missing the point. …. snip ...

You might want to consider this: If you state everyone is missing the point that is a good indication that you may be wrong - unless you consider yourself to be the only one here with the correct answers.

 

[Oopsie Daisy]

Credits are practically handed out like candy now. Rebuy only effects newer players. There is very little need for reduced rebuys.

Your PvE server is called Mobius.

Open Only!

 

[voidwalker]

You might want to consider this: If you state everyone is missing the point that is a good indication that you may be wrong - unless you consider yourself to be the only one here with the correct answers.

"Once again" denotes a demonstrable trend amongst a demonstrable type of player with a demonstrable type of attitude. You haven't provided a counter argument to this point, that it's about choice, nor have you demonstrated that it is wrong with your argumentum ad populum. So, I have to ask, what makes me wrong, exactly? Do you not have the choices I speak of? I'm pretty sure you do, you're just choosing not to make them. But, if I'm wrong, demonstrate it.

Because ONCE AGAIN, all you've demonstrated is your propensity to cherry-pick the low-hanging fruit of a post (ie semantics) to form your non-argument around in an attempt to do nothing more than discredit the person posting it. You do this often. You have argue against the actual points people make, you just try to find small things in their post to nit-pick as if it will discredit everything else they're saying. In my experience with you so far, you are intellectually bankrupt, with no interest in discussion or dialectic, only getting your own way.

There are only two ways things get done in the world: discussion and compromise, or violence. And I don't think anyone is taking up arms over a video game, so if you can't be part of the discussion, you won't get anything except ignorance or, at best, mockery, of this fluff you keep posting. I've seen better attempts to obfuscate from creationists and scientologists.

 

[M00ka]

"Once again" denotes a demonstrable trend amongst a demonstrable type of player with a demonstrable type of attitude. You haven't provided a counter argument to this point, that it's about choice, nor have you demonstrated that it is wrong with your argumentum ad populum. So, I have to ask, what makes me wrong, exactly? Do you not have the choices I speak of? I'm pretty sure you do, you're just choosing not to make them. But, if I'm wrong, demonstrate it.

Because ONCE AGAIN, all you've demonstrated is your propensity to cherry-pick the low-hanging fruit of a post (ie semantics) to form your non-argument around in an attempt to do nothing more than discredit the person posting it. You do this often. You have argue against the actual points people make, you just try to find small things in their post to nit-pick as if it will discredit everything else they're saying. In my experience with you so far, you are intellectually bankrupt, with no interest in discussion or dialectic, only getting your own way.

There are only two ways things get done in the world: discussion and compromise, or violence. And I don't think anyone is taking up arms over a video game, so if you can't be part of the discussion, you won't get anything except ignorance or, at best, mockery, of this fluff you keep posting. I've seen better attempts to obfuscate from creationists and scientologists.

I am not the one claiming everyone else is wrong

 

[Oopsie Daisy]

You might want to consider this: If you state everyone is missing the point that is a good indication that you may be wrong - unless you consider yourself to be the only one here with the correct answers.

Lol. How lame. So much nonsense. You deliberately ignore 99% of his comment. Typical. Voidwalker is absolutely correct. You are just looking for a quick and easy, lazy, way to dismiss his argument.

 

[voidwalker]

I am not the only claiming everyone else is wrong

Neither am I. Context is everything, mate. If you read it in said context, you'll realise I'm talking about 'everyone on that side of the argument'.

It's quite clear, though, that you aren't interested in a mature, adult discussion, and your intent is intellectually bankrupt and malicious, at best. I'm going to put you on ignore now, because you are less worth having a conversation with than the dirt I scrape from my toenails in the shower. All you ever do is obfuscate, offer intellectually bankrupt character value judgements, and cherry-pick and nit-pick at the low-hanging fruit in posts because you have no ability to argue against the actual points they're making. It's important that you understand that after this post, I haven't stopped replying to you because you've won something, I've stopped because if I continue with you, there's a chance I'll get banned from the forums for picking on someone who's a bit..... slow.