My point is.. its so easy to be high and mighty, say how people need to get good, learnt to outfit (i agree they should) but they would not be half a if the game was just as dangerous for greifer.
The game is as inherently dangerous to the griefer as the trader. The former are simply better prepared. You confuse the poor decision making of many other pilots with the inherent risk of the game for the griefer.
For a few notable griefers in particular - HP & Zarek for instance - they have a slew of skillled lawful commanders who would *love* to have that kill trophy in their list. For those two CMDRs, the game is literally more dangerous. Zarek recently posted a video of being hunted by a combat vette from his shieldless eagle. That's more lopsided danger than almost any trader ever faces.
If you really agree the traders should learn to outfit, go help them instead of wasting trying to belittle a playstyle.
The maths... [...various griefers pay more spacebucks suggestions...] And then we may see grifers crying harassment. Just an interesting idea
That's not math, it's implying griefers would childishly cry, and also abandon their playstyle, when faced with higher credit consequences. Another moral judgement disguised as a gameplay mechanic proposal, and not interesting to me.
We wouldn't "cry" harassment. We might document and point out virtriol. To this day I haven't destroyed a ship without at least attempting comms giving the opponent a chance to help shape the encounter and not die. I often get genuine friend requests after encounters b/c they are fun. But when they respond with things like "ugh, roleplay" (literal quite from a shieldless t-9 running goods in open at a superpower aligned CG), then they have decided to take their chances with flight and fight. A bad choice for a paper build.
Well before I had ever destroyed a single weaker ship, I was 1. called an
alt of Zarek's and 2. told that a poster wished "
I'd get it caught in my zipper every time I went". So the moral highground nonsense is rubbish to me. It's just a video game anyway, and I see more nasty, reprehensible posts against gankers than posted by them. It's distasteful the level to which some on this forum make things personal. I try to never make this personal. There are many CMDRs who in game I would try to blow up due to my chosen roleplay, but whom out of game I'd love to buy a drink.
i Wish i could, but i never got into the 'twitter' generation, and cant condense what i'm saying. Something things take more than a sentence, else we end up explaining the meaning of one sentence for 50 posts.
I do my best to explain a point without misleading people, so that we don't go down pointless avenues (still working on that).... but these days, people scan read and see what they want
Here you just make an empty character attack (through the cliche of "wisdom of generations"). There's a fair chance I'm both older than you and more well read (not certain of course, I don't make moral/character judgement based on a video game) . The argument of conciseness vs. verbosity long predates twitter. Hemingway vs. Faulkner was a prime example. Hemingway summed it up well with, "Remember, anybody who pulls his erudition or education on you hasn’t any." Sadly, none of the forum bickering elevates to that level of prose rivalry.
You would do better to explain with direct, focused points that shed the moral judgement and meandering rambling.