If they were smart they'd do a lot of things to make it less toxic. But as it stands they force players off their open server.
Solving the pve/pvp problem.
- Thread starter GlitchedVision0101
- Start date
If they were smart they'd do a lot of things to make it less toxic. But as it stands they force players off their open server.
So, for context, I like CQC a lot. I'm a member of the squadron currently leading the CQC leaderboards on PC, I have CQC Elite rank ... and I personally much prefer CQC to main game PvP precisely because it's not a long battle of attrition to grind through those engineered shields. So I'm not saying any of this because I don't like CQC.
CQC is not a substitute for main game PvP. It's a fun and light-hearted ship exploding game, it's well-balanced, and it's got some interesting maps. But it is also extremely limited in what scenarios you can set up.
Let's say that all the PvPers in the game agreed that they would never go into the Fomalhaut system [1]. And let's say that they (somehow) stuck to that rule absolutely, no cheating, no mistakes, no new PvPers not realising the rule, etc. Fomalhaut has Extraction, Refinery and Colony economies, so traders can trade between those stations profitably without ever having to leave the system. There we go - all the traders can have Fomalhaut - the designated Close Quarters Trading system. The traders should be happy with that, right? (Frontier could even add a couple more stations - maybe an Agricultural and an Industrial? - to give a bit more variety to the economy)
Suggesting CQC is a substitute for main game PvP is like that. In CQC, you can't:
- reliably set up a match between specific teams or individuals
- set up a match with customised odds (e.g. one veteran versus three beginners, or one Anaconda versus four Vipers) - asymmetric is not the same as unfair
- set up a match near a planet surface
- set up a match using anything bigger than an Eagle
- set up a match of a size other than 8 players
- set up scenarios that include supercruise
- set up scenarios that involve NPCs
...and that's just for pre-arranged duels, never mind things like piracy.
You can do a lot of the things you can do with trading without having to enter hyperspace. But there's a lot more to trading than that.
[1] In practice, given the size of the galaxy and the low number of players attacking traders, 99% of inhabited systems might as well have this rule anyway. Exactly which 99% may change slowly from time to time.
Among willing participants PvP is fine. But when you go after people who do not wish to take part in it because they know the cost is too extreme it becomes an issue.
I used to play in PvP servers on SW:toR and Rift. I enjoyed the PvP matches and fighting people out in open. The enjoyment of it was because I knew it was a test of skill and the penalty wasn't game breaking. I wouldn't mind getting attacked so much if I knew it wasn't going to cost me 200 tons of void opals, or a week of solid exploration data. Getting killed still sucks, but it's amplified by the fact that the loss is quite extreme.
The only PvE/PvP problem is that NPCs are too different from/inferior to CMDRs. If NPCs were less predictable, more persistent, and more potent--preferably to the extent that they'd be hard to distinguish from CMDRs--then any dichotomy in combat tactics and loadout strategy along these lines would vanish.
The idea that CQC could ever be a substitute for PvP in the core game is a farce of comical proportions. CQC is to ED PvP as football or chess is to warfare. It's an abstraction of a tiny slice of the spectrum that the broader topic covers. Even if you arbitrarily exclude 'toxic' forms of PvP, CQC covers almost none of what's left.
The idea that CQC could ever be a substitute for PvP in the core game is a farce of comical proportions. CQC is to ED PvP as football or chess is to warfare. It's an abstraction of a tiny slice of the spectrum that the broader topic covers. Even if you arbitrarily exclude 'toxic' forms of PvP, CQC covers almost none of what's left.
No. In Open I am playing with like-minded players.
Of course, there may be a rare few who have chosen a mode that does not suit their playstyle.
I used to play Shadowbane and Jumpgate. I enjoyed the unrestricted PvP, where one was essentially never completely safe, anywhere, and where the penalties for being killed could be quite severe relative to the paltry consequences inflicted in ED. The enjoyment was because I knew it was a test of a very broad array of skills and the penalties were severe enough to be a major motivation not to be killed, and to make killing one's opponents sting them badly enough that they wouldn't be able to immediately recover, making victory a tangible reward.
The OP is no solution to the problem at all. Reducing the time and grind for engineering doesn't change a thing about the totally different builds. PvP gank builds are set up for burst damage, but not longevity, PvE combat builds are set up for longevity against NPCs, but can do nothing against PvP builds, except run away if engineered defensively enough. Don't even start with builds with civilian purposes, those have no chance at all.
reducing the grind was not my only suggestion made above. Yes, defensive engineering is strong and breaking through all defenses is a true chore even with burst damage. That being said, I was suggesting to give it a balance pass. At current, many of the downsides to each upgrade aren't strong enough to truly make you feel that you have traded something for the added benefits you got from that particular upgrade and some available upgrades are simply pointless to even consider. I like the idea stated above about sidegrades rather than pure upgrades, but for that to happen, the penalties on the current upgrades would need to be increased a bit.
I would also like to mention the truth about farming and building for survivability that Ian Doncaster mentioned above is great advice and I generally use those metrics when building ships anyway, even though I don't enter open play all that much. Education could also be a valid solution to the issue, however it's human nature to pass the blame off on something or someone else rather than actually learn from ones own mistakes and readjust their strategy accordingly.
I knew in advance that this thread would attract the same debate going on in other threads, and I appreciate those who have actually paid attention to the point and commented on the state of the engineering system as it pertains to the issue many are having.
TL/DR, go and read at the bottom,
If you want to solve the problem, look the incentives for doing certain stuff and and also what consequences certain actions has, in this case, what is the cost of being killed by another player. As the incentive for a player to hunt another player is quite different in most cases compared to why an NPC is going after a player..
For Open PvP and Open PvE
One of the biggest things that is brought up is the cost associated with loosing your ship, not only just the rebuy, but any cargo/bonds/vouchers,/Exploration data etc.
So the loss for the player can be quite significant. Also where you start after getting killed could have a huge impact before as well, and it still have an impact, as seems to matter if it was a player or NPC that killed you. NPC = start closest station, Player = your last docked station.
Imbalance between players, this is also a very brought up topic, as how you have decided to outfit your ship really does matter. No surprise that a ship outfitted for a single kill will outperform any other ship outfitted for other tasks. Engineering did nothing to make this balance any better. One common argument why this is not a problem, outfit your ship properly.... What is talked about very little is the skill difference here, as most of the time, people that are the targets have no experience on this, and those dong this, have in relation done this alot more, and thus we have pretty significant skill skap. And when the attacker missjudges the situation, and ends up loosing, they are bad sport all of a sudden and Combat logg to save their ship/deny the other the win/etc/etc...
Exit game with timer, this is another hot topic, as you can choose to exit the game but if you are in danger, there is 15 seconds timer, before you can leave the game, This have been used by many players to actually escape PvP encounters and now the hunters cry faul for doing this. But FDev have said that this is approved mechanics and maybe the timer can be adjusted, but the function will remain. Often this is grouped together with Combat Logg, where you by other means kills the game process/pull the network, etc, etc, to leave the game instantly. This is an abuse of the game system, and is not allowed according to TOS, problem is that from programmatically standpoint, it is hard to identify the abuse from just real life bad internet connection, crashed game, crashed OS, etc. And FDev have adopted the you are innocent until proven Guilty stance, so we do not punish honest players for things they cannot control, but this also makes it ALOT easier for players to abuse this. Add to this that FDev do not tell you about any actions they might have taken, ie you will not get a we have banned XX for combat logging on you reporting this.
We do also have 3 modes of the game, Solo, Private Group and Open, and here Solo/PG is something the ones that like to hunt players really hate, as that means less players for them to hunt and kill. According to statement from FDev, Open is the most popular mode, and that Solo and Private Group is not likely to be removed. It is
And over years, nothing much have change regarding this.
==============================================================================================
So Game modes, they are here to stay, and as much as some people would like a Open PvE, I do not think that is going to happen, as that will bring us LOTS of funky behaviour, as we cannot allow collision between player ships, as this can be abused in so many ways. So the only safe way to handle that is to remove player collisions. Stuff like healing beams, creates another problem, as we obviously do not allow attack damage between players. And the list of things that needs to be changed, and messed around with goes on. So this is why I do not think why Open PvE never will happen.
Imbalance between players and how they outfit their ships, this is never going to be solved. And the notion that you need to outfit your ship properly is most of the time, just hidden Git Gud argument, to justify that you where just bad and that is why you got blown up. But with most arguments, there is a learning curve, some builds works better than others, sadly there is no real way to learn about this in the game, but trial and error. Flying cargo in a shieldless ship is obviously more risky than having a shield to begin with. But skill of the player can mitigate or even overcome such things. I have friend who routinely flies his Cutter in Open with shields. I do not. I have lost my Cutter more than my friend. but then again, I do shoot al pirates that come and hunt me, my friend evades them. Skill and playstyle.
How to exit the game when in danger, I doubt that the system is going to change much.
As for Combat logging, I do not expect FDev to change their stance this either, it is against the TOS, and they will nut pre-emptively punish player for this occurrence. But I do expect that we will see some changes in how they will detect abuse of this, as they can correlate how you play and when certain actions happens, for example, if you "only" loose your connection/process dies/etc when you are in a fight you started and are "loosing", we have a pattern that we can act on. This is what I believe the Karma system is meant to be, to act on what you do and over time react back on you. If this is a correct assumption, then Karma system will never punish you straight away for somethign you did, like C&P does.
TL/DR go HERE
So then we are left with the losses that happens when your ship is destroyed. Here we can actually do things.
Why do people do this to unwillingly participant, because they get a kick out of it, and it gets even better if their victim cries about it, sent a "hate" message etc. We can never truly prevent this without removing PvP altogether, as even in PvP this happens too. To mitigate this, we can reduce the burden on the victim, by essentially making this as costless as possible to them.
*No Rebuy cost
*No loss of NPC Pilot
*No loss of bonds/vouchers/exploration data
*No loss of cargo, any cargo you had when you died, is put back, Any mission specific cargo are restocked at the originating station, we cannot simply restock a ship full of void opals that a hatchet breaker limpet released, as this would allow players to do duplicate these. So this would be an abuse. Player piracy is a thing, and is unlikely to be removed. But griefers who is out to kill you no matter what, will most likely not use hatch breaker limpets.
*New options to respawn, last docked station (for lost mission cargo), last system you jumped from, or closest station.
* Players always have the option upon respawn, to change game mode, evade the "griefer" that way. so get your ship back, and switch to solo, and be on your way. Player can also use their option to block the griefer, and thus reducing the likelyhoood to instance with said player in the future.
So in most cases, the player that is getting killed, loose nothing but some time. So this now makes dying to another player to be more of minor thing, than it is today.
This could also promote PvP activities, if the loss of the ship etc is removed, you are more likely to try and engage in a PvP encounter, even if you are sure to "loose", because what do you have to lose here now? Even the incentive to combat logg in a PvP fight is reduced, as the most obvious reason todo this now is to only deny the other part the "win".
Players can still hate PvP, and do not want to participate in PvP, but atleast they do not have to loose progress, etc, if they encounter it. And they still have the options of choosing in what game mode to play in. And random player encounters are still a risky business, just like encountering a wanted NPC... they might be interested in you or not.
I like the suggestions above, but I think removing all costs related to death is a bit counterproductive. If there is no cost to failure, then there is also no incentive to improve. I feel we could reduce the death penalties so as to encourage that sense of wanting to try and pushing for greater things without totally making ship destruction completely meaningless.
- No NPC crew death: paying an additional insurance cost to retrieve them or making it a mission are both ways I have seen mentioned many times that would work well here.
- No loss of data/bonds: this will at least allow players to recover some of the rebuy costs without making them completely meaningless. Alternatively, let them be traded at interstellar factors rates at the rebuy screen to reduce the up front rebuy cost.
Cargo insurance: this would be a way to recover your cargo by paying a percentage of the galactic average price for the cargo, which still allows destruction to be impactful as a learning tool while still reducing the cost of replacing cargo.
- Extra respawn options as mentioned above
I'm pretty sure Frontier will not completely remove the destruction penalties, however if we can meet in a middle ground that still promotes a sense of being taken down a peg or two without feeling like you've just been sent flying off of a mountain with a 1000 km fall, we may get somewhere in regards to reuniting the fractured player base.
Simple remedy would be to do as the supposed "GOD" did when he realized there was a problem with his creation and basically rebooted the system. Simply eliminate any and all engineering and delete any and all that presently exist. If the choices between keeping the standard issued "E's" or upgrading to "A's" isn't sufficient, then simply improving one skill would make it so it is.
Engineering has become a process that has no end to it. At some time when not if, everyone finally becomes fully engineered to the nine's. Then what would be the difference if no one was engineered. Answer in one word: "SKILL". Tis now possible to park a fully engineered a ship at a NAV beacon or other and leave the game run as they go about their personal business for a few hours. At some point in the future, come back and realize that their cr's and combat status has increased. I understand that at one point it added content to the game. But now it's not content as much as it is a mandate. Even in SOLO and PRIVATE modes, one is faced with dealing with engineered NPC's.
Engineering has become a process that has no end to it. At some time when not if, everyone finally becomes fully engineered to the nine's. Then what would be the difference if no one was engineered. Answer in one word: "SKILL". Tis now possible to park a fully engineered a ship at a NAV beacon or other and leave the game run as they go about their personal business for a few hours. At some point in the future, come back and realize that their cr's and combat status has increased. I understand that at one point it added content to the game. But now it's not content as much as it is a mandate. Even in SOLO and PRIVATE modes, one is faced with dealing with engineered NPC's.
Engineering is considerably easier than it was at launch.
Unlocking some engineers is a pita, but actually engineering is not.
Upgrading your ship, so it can effectively escape a gank attack, doesn't require much effort at all, just some thought, and a bit of good flying.
Material traders makes getting hard to find materials easier, and the whole process is a guaranteed upgrade on previous rolls.
Seems as Mac is no longer supported, there is very little reason not to upgrade to Horizons, especially when it's on offer.
And there is no real way to balance engineering with non engineering, without undoing all the work many many players have put in, to please the few who won't upgrade or won't engineer.
Murderhobos will attack anyone they think they can kill easily.
So make it so they can't.
You've got all the tools needed to do this, from engineering, to paying attention in Open, modes, and blocking.
You may not be able to kill your attacker, but if your job is to get from A to B alive, then that's what you focus on. Plus engineering has allowed everyone to make their ship incredibly difficult to kill, with very little in the way of compromise. This applies to both PvP and PvE.
With a bit of work and thought, you can completely avoid "being killed in seconds" by anyone or anything, except a station. Lol
It is true, C&P does need a bit more teeth, especially for murder of players.
But until then, just use what you've got to get the hell out of there.
Unlocking some engineers is a pita, but actually engineering is not.
Upgrading your ship, so it can effectively escape a gank attack, doesn't require much effort at all, just some thought, and a bit of good flying.
Material traders makes getting hard to find materials easier, and the whole process is a guaranteed upgrade on previous rolls.
Seems as Mac is no longer supported, there is very little reason not to upgrade to Horizons, especially when it's on offer.
And there is no real way to balance engineering with non engineering, without undoing all the work many many players have put in, to please the few who won't upgrade or won't engineer.
Murderhobos will attack anyone they think they can kill easily.
So make it so they can't.
You've got all the tools needed to do this, from engineering, to paying attention in Open, modes, and blocking.
You may not be able to kill your attacker, but if your job is to get from A to B alive, then that's what you focus on. Plus engineering has allowed everyone to make their ship incredibly difficult to kill, with very little in the way of compromise. This applies to both PvP and PvE.
With a bit of work and thought, you can completely avoid "being killed in seconds" by anyone or anything, except a station. Lol
It is true, C&P does need a bit more teeth, especially for murder of players.
But until then, just use what you've got to get the hell out of there.
This would only apply to getting killed by another player. This appears to be one of the biggest grips people that do not like PvP and thus wanting PvE Open mode. And this is not a random fear, as we know that some player groups targets other players just because they are other players, this is the simple situation. As most people can agree that it should be fair game to any player to attack any wanted player, but much of the fear comes from players simply hunting clean players just for "fun".
So the entire idea is based on remove almost all negatives to die by another player, but keep them for when NPC kills you.
If you solve the problem. People will only find another problem.
Long live the problem, I say.
Long live the problem, I say.
You're quite fond of claiming that people are "forced" to do things. Are you certain that it isn't simply people realizing what modes are best for themselves?
My modest proposal is that there are no engineering rebalances, play mode additions, or crime and punishment enforcement changes necessary. The entire problem of PVP griefing can be solved with the proper application of insurance and liability.
Problem:
The behaviours that separate griefing from non-griefing PVP play are severally:
1. Griefing ignores in-game justifications for PVP violence (faction conflict, power play, piracy, background sim effects), favouring player-focused effects of violence (harvesting tears to bathe in, causing distress at the loss of work, teaching lessons), and so favours extra-game effects at the cost of reduced reinforcement of the game’s universe through player behaviour
2. Griefing is play designed to maximize the cost to the targeted player relative to the cost to the griefing player (attacking explorers with weeks worth of difficult to replace exploration data, with notoriety payed off from a run of mining or a few hours of waiting)
3. Griefing ignores in-game geographies of violence (anarchy systems, war zones, shipping lanes) over opportunistic player-killing locations (exploration and expedition hotspots, engineer home systems, suicidewinding the slot), and so does damage to the logic of situational risk in the game.
There are game problems caused for all players by the status quo. Players are taught through play to avoid or fear central and heavily populated places, rather than sparsely populated and lawless ones. Players who should be filling busy places with their presence are opting out of open to avoid imbalanced risk. And, controversially perhaps, behaviour that should be risky, like trading in pirate systems or supporting factions in contested systems, is made less risky because the most motivated player killers don’t have sufficient incentive to be killing players for those reasons instead, and leave that work to less-capable AI ships.
Solution:
All players in ED already carry basic ship insurance policies with a deductible that varies based on the notoriety of the ships involved in an accident or altercation. Paying the deductible will reinstate the player with the ship they were flying at the time of its destruction.
By expanding the option to pay some additional deductible for the cost of the contents of the vessel, the risks of space flight could be reduced significantly. Because this would significantly alter the risk taken on by the insurer, it makes sense that this would be an optional upgrade to insurance plans, and require the affirmative choice to carry a policy with additional premiums for coverage - say a percentage of income during the term of coverage, like NPC crew. This would also account for the reduced risk to players - assets do not climb as fast with insurance paid for - while allowing players to forgo coverage if they object to the reduced risk and effects on playstyle, and keep more earnings as a result.
Logically, insurance providers will not be content to pay out based on premiums and deductibles alone, but will seek to recoup losses from liable parties. Liability could be determined on the basis of clean vs wanted status, system conflict state, speeding at the time of impact, etc. I’d argue that, as a balance and to promote a consistent geography of risk, determining liability should also require that the system wherein the incident transpired have a security state of at least low, as anarchy systems would not have the authorities required to assess liability. Additionally, in anarchy systems, if a pilots federation member is in the system and witnesses the incident (I would include being in supercruise and witnessing an interdiction), and survives to report that incident to authorities (for a payment) the liability is also assignable.
Players deemed liable for the destruction of another ship are assessed a debt equal to the losses to the insurance company for the value of the ship, and any cargo or exploration data that was insured. In order to deal with non anarchy stations that the insurance industry is in good relationship with (not sure if these should be superfaction related or as pan-galactic as the real-life finance industry is), a player with liability debt would have to pay it off. This debt would be retireable only through full payment or bankruptcy, including the liquidation of all player assets. Players with this debt could still access stations that are controlled by anarchy factions, but would be isolated as the rogue actors they play as.
Even if the debt is attached to the ship rather than the player, as the C&P system attaches fines and bounties, I believe these insurance tweaks could be effective in transferring significant costs and risks to a griefer from their victim, without eliminating the PVP violence that contributes positively to the community. An option to stay in open without being subject to mismatched risk is offered to non-combat-focused players, and a more challenging environment for pirates and assassins is offered - pick your targets and place of attack carefully, find good pirate dens that offer services without debt payment, kill all witnesses, etc. And if PVP gankers want to kill a thousand range-outfitted anacondas with 100M of exploration data apiece 30,000 LY from anywhere, they had better kill every last one, or they’ll have to git good at void opal mining if they want to see the inside of a station again.
Problem:
The behaviours that separate griefing from non-griefing PVP play are severally:
1. Griefing ignores in-game justifications for PVP violence (faction conflict, power play, piracy, background sim effects), favouring player-focused effects of violence (harvesting tears to bathe in, causing distress at the loss of work, teaching lessons), and so favours extra-game effects at the cost of reduced reinforcement of the game’s universe through player behaviour
2. Griefing is play designed to maximize the cost to the targeted player relative to the cost to the griefing player (attacking explorers with weeks worth of difficult to replace exploration data, with notoriety payed off from a run of mining or a few hours of waiting)
3. Griefing ignores in-game geographies of violence (anarchy systems, war zones, shipping lanes) over opportunistic player-killing locations (exploration and expedition hotspots, engineer home systems, suicidewinding the slot), and so does damage to the logic of situational risk in the game.
There are game problems caused for all players by the status quo. Players are taught through play to avoid or fear central and heavily populated places, rather than sparsely populated and lawless ones. Players who should be filling busy places with their presence are opting out of open to avoid imbalanced risk. And, controversially perhaps, behaviour that should be risky, like trading in pirate systems or supporting factions in contested systems, is made less risky because the most motivated player killers don’t have sufficient incentive to be killing players for those reasons instead, and leave that work to less-capable AI ships.
Solution:
All players in ED already carry basic ship insurance policies with a deductible that varies based on the notoriety of the ships involved in an accident or altercation. Paying the deductible will reinstate the player with the ship they were flying at the time of its destruction.
By expanding the option to pay some additional deductible for the cost of the contents of the vessel, the risks of space flight could be reduced significantly. Because this would significantly alter the risk taken on by the insurer, it makes sense that this would be an optional upgrade to insurance plans, and require the affirmative choice to carry a policy with additional premiums for coverage - say a percentage of income during the term of coverage, like NPC crew. This would also account for the reduced risk to players - assets do not climb as fast with insurance paid for - while allowing players to forgo coverage if they object to the reduced risk and effects on playstyle, and keep more earnings as a result.
Logically, insurance providers will not be content to pay out based on premiums and deductibles alone, but will seek to recoup losses from liable parties. Liability could be determined on the basis of clean vs wanted status, system conflict state, speeding at the time of impact, etc. I’d argue that, as a balance and to promote a consistent geography of risk, determining liability should also require that the system wherein the incident transpired have a security state of at least low, as anarchy systems would not have the authorities required to assess liability. Additionally, in anarchy systems, if a pilots federation member is in the system and witnesses the incident (I would include being in supercruise and witnessing an interdiction), and survives to report that incident to authorities (for a payment) the liability is also assignable.
Players deemed liable for the destruction of another ship are assessed a debt equal to the losses to the insurance company for the value of the ship, and any cargo or exploration data that was insured. In order to deal with non anarchy stations that the insurance industry is in good relationship with (not sure if these should be superfaction related or as pan-galactic as the real-life finance industry is), a player with liability debt would have to pay it off. This debt would be retireable only through full payment or bankruptcy, including the liquidation of all player assets. Players with this debt could still access stations that are controlled by anarchy factions, but would be isolated as the rogue actors they play as.
Even if the debt is attached to the ship rather than the player, as the C&P system attaches fines and bounties, I believe these insurance tweaks could be effective in transferring significant costs and risks to a griefer from their victim, without eliminating the PVP violence that contributes positively to the community. An option to stay in open without being subject to mismatched risk is offered to non-combat-focused players, and a more challenging environment for pirates and assassins is offered - pick your targets and place of attack carefully, find good pirate dens that offer services without debt payment, kill all witnesses, etc. And if PVP gankers want to kill a thousand range-outfitted anacondas with 100M of exploration data apiece 30,000 LY from anywhere, they had better kill every last one, or they’ll have to git good at void opal mining if they want to see the inside of a station again.
Last edited:
How about suicide sidewinders?
Scenario, some player is entering/existing station, they fly just under 100 to avoid the speeding, now a sidewinder boost into them from the back, the impact pushes the ship over the speed limit, the sidewinder dies and the player is now considered guilty, since they are now speeding... This is a thing.
I fly my 1 Billion ship with a 50 million rebuy, I have 1 % hull, and closing in on the station, I find a good target, sneak up behind, and drop my shield, and nudges your ship, without speeding my self, tihis pushes your ship to be speeding and my ship takes damage and explodes, and now you are stuck with 50 million extra cost for my rebuy.
I can take the same Cutter and deliberately fly into your weapon fire and 1% hull does hold to much damge and you kill me, you get wanted and have to pay my rebuy..
And we can go on with issues with how we can trick the game to assign blame for death of a player to a player.
We already have lots of clueless players that by mistake kills NPC ships that was dying and flew thought their weapon fire and got tagged then player ended with up a notoriety and and bounty.
So there is lots of flaws i this system, and those griefers killing new players in the starter systems, do not have to worry about huge rebuys costs, for small ships. Also these players have also spent time on making money too, so they are not "poor" and this would not impact most of these player that much because this.
And take responsibility for my own actions and ship? Lol, what do you think this is? Elite?
No, it isnt a thing in the actual game. This only exist in the fevered imagination of scared cmdrs.
Ian Phillips
Volunteer Moderator
