Why play online?

[Zenicetus]

Let's use the current alcohol ban from the Federation as an example. Let's say player group A wants to enforce the ban and group B wants to thwart it. So B drops into Solo, smuggles tons of alcohol all over the place, spikes the Eranin rum sales through the roof. Meanwhile, player group A sits in open play and stops NPC smugglers...

Now the in game story has been dictated by the solo/private players' actions while the open play players have accomplished little to nothing because they couldn't stop the smuggling.

This is an exaggeration to prove a point but 50 pro-Federation players in Open play can have less of an impact on this scenario than 5 solo/private players smuggling booze. Is it fair to dodge gameplay, influence galactic events, and change the course of the story with nothing to directly oppose you?

I think this misses the point that there are no single, persistent locations in the game. The celebration booze is being made in Eranin and Wyrd, presumably flowing through their respective stations. But those two stations don't exist as discrete, single locations. The game will generate as many different copies of those stations as are needed, to fill the traveling Island instance bubbles of the players who go there. Multiple Azeban Cities, multiple Vonarburg Co-Operatives. And not just in Solo Online, but in All Online too, depending on how the P2P matchmaking server loads players into their overlapping bubbles.

You can't blockade those stations, except in terms of a loose statistical chance that your players are a little more likely to show up for other players if they congregate in those systems. Like Freeport is working now, and notice that many players in All Online say they never see other players there, because they're at a different Freeport! Geographical separation is probably a factor here too, with players in places like Australia less likely to be matched with players in the UK/Europe in the same instance, due to lag issues.

Bottom line: It's an instanced game, not a single server where emergent, player based territorial control makes sense as a rationale for forcing everyone into PvP mode.

 

[macdog]

Well, I just think your doing your best to muddy the water here. I'm not getting drawn into this. I'll resign to let you resolve your own confusions. I offered a perfectly clear example. I understand it doesn't meet your needs.

OK, thanks for responding. But you have stated I have tried to muddy the waters and am confused (well I guess you have confused me somewhat). You haven't offered an actual response though. Please don't call people out on things if you are not prepared to back up what you are saying. Its a free world though, so I guess if you like doing that, its up to you.

Let's just leave it at thatI like the game the way it is designed, you don't. fair enough to me.

Thats a shame as its likely to change. Nothing to say the changes will move it more to your or my liking, but the consensus it appears to me, given this is a beta is that change is the only certainty.

 

[DancesWithHogs]

This is simply wrong. Again you discount the NPC ships. Granted, things don't work correctly yet. No NPC ships in the super cruise and such, but eventually they will form the majority of the traffic. Work hard and stop 10 NPC smugglers. A rival player has to smuggle in 10 loads to counter that. You are doing your police work in a combat ship, where as the trader is trying to dodge NPC patrols in a freighter, or using a hybrid ship like the Cobra, and having to do three runs to equal a single type 6 run.

***

The problem just isn't there once the simulation is running properly. Every NPC ship you stop will count, and the oppising player will be working just as hard.

And you're putting too much weight on NPCs. They're not going to be a challenge to even new players, that much has been stated clearly by members of the development team and quoted in this very thread.

Not only that, but galactic events shouldn't be majorly influenced by NPCs, that takes away from player actualization.

If NPCs aren't a challenge, who's going to win in the BoozeWar? The player dealing with only NPCs or the player trying to play the open world sandbox? Arguably, as it's meant to be played.

Perhaps solo/private interaction should have reduced or eliminated impact on galactic events? Encouraging Open play to be more than PVP-of-the-rich-and-established.

Edit for Zenicetus: I understand that the game is instanced, but being able to 100% dodge a blockade with a toggle is what I feel is the problem. Being completely helpless against solo players influencing major game events, either through war or trade, is quite honestly un-fun. If my police efforts can be beaten by a menu selection instead of clever piloting, merc action, or what have you then what's the point?

I can accept the random chance of router settings, geographical location, time zones, etc. But I can't accept a menu toggle to avoid challenge, neutralize my efforts, and change galactic events without opposition.


Another edit just for Adept: assuming every NPC ship stopped counts do you really think there's a 1-1 ratio between NPC and player smuggling/trading volume?
NPCs rarely carry all one good. If I stop a lakon 9 with 20 tons of booze does that really equate to a player with 440 tons getting by in solo?

 

[philux]

Bottom line: It's an instanced game, not a single server where emergent, player based territorial control makes sense as a rationale for forcing everyone into PvP mode.

Due to their large player base most MMOs are instance/shard-based, hence you will never meet all players who are in one spot of the game world. However, there are global events and points of interest (e.g., a very large trade port, an area with rare of rich resources, etc.) in the universe as indicated by DB. Large numbers of players will gravitate to those point of interests and, naturally, you would also meet more likely hostile competition there. With the solo mode you basically can completely evade that but still go after your business in that area. By doing that, solo online players influence the world globally (e.g., changing trading prices, influencing faction battles and, hence, territory control) while being safe from any other player.

This breaks the notion of consistency wrt. challenges and obstacles that every online player has to face and overcome when he wants to pursuit his business in such hot spots. Additionally, as has been mentioned before, DB and FDEV believe and will design the game such that an average human player will have superior skill and wits than any AI you'll encounter. Hence, the argument that NPC are an equally difficult opposition than human players doesn't apply here either.

 

[philux]

*double post*

 

[Adept]

And you're putting too much weight on NPCs. They're not going to be a challenge to even new players, that much has been stated clearly by members of the development team and quoted in this very thread.

Not only that, but galactic events shouldn't be majorly influenced by NPCs, that takes away from player actualization.

If NPCs aren't a challenge, who's going to win in the BoozeWar?

Let's see. How long have you been around? How many hours of gametime so you have that have convinced you that NPCs are no threat? It seems more a deeply held belief than anything more. People struggle even with the 2nd single player scenario, and I'm very doubtful about you yourself having played through Incursion.

NPCs are no threat currently, because beta 1 broke the FA-off speed bleed-off. The "no threat" comes from the fact that you can boost and escape interdiction. It doesn't mean that they would be pushovers in actual combat. I'd like to see you take on even a single NPC Cobra in a Type 6 or a Hauler, or two well armed Cobras in a Cobra. Blowing up federal Condors at the distress beacon in a pimped out Viper doesn't give you a good handle on the NPC threat range. Honestly, I have a hard time believing you know what you are talking about. It aounds more like dogma than actual combat experience talking.

Your whole caserests on "NPCs are no threat", and you suggest casually flying type 9 loads through a Federal blockade in solo mode.

Have you ever actually flown a space cow? Have you somehow seen the future, and know how effective system blockades by actual navies will be?

 

[Zenicetus]

Edit for Zenicetus: I understand that the game is instanced, but being able to 100% dodge a blockade with a toggle is what I feel is the problem. Being completely helpless against solo players influencing major game events, either through war or trade, is quite honestly un-fun. If my police efforts can be beaten by a menu selection instead of clever piloting, merc action, or what have you then what's the point?

I can accept the random chance of router settings, geographical location, time zones, etc. But I can't accept a menu toggle to avoid challenge, neutralize my efforts, and change galactic events without opposition.

Due to their large player base most MMOs are instance/shard-based, hence you will never meet all players who are in one spot of the game world. However, there are global events and points of interest (e.g., a very large trade port, an area with rare of rich resources, etc.) in the universe as indicated by DB. Large numbers of players will gravitate to those point of interests and, naturally, you would also meet more likely hostile competition there. With the solo mode you basically can completely evade that but still go after your business in that area. By doing that, solo online players influence the world globally (e.g., changing trading prices, influencing faction battles and, hence, territory control) while being safe from any other player.

Responding to both posts, for brevity, and because it's the same answers.

I understand the argument, believe me. However it's not that black and white a difference (IMO). The fact that a player in Solo Online might have less challenge than a player in All Online, doesn't mean they will have no challenge at all.

Many assumptions are made in threads like this about the relative threat of NPC's, but we haven't seen what the final AI looks like yet, or the final balancing of numbers of NPC's encountered in the respective modes. FD can make NPC enemies as hard to fight, or as numerous as they want to, to make Solo Online a challenge. I'm reminded of the AI rear gunners in Rise of Flight singleplayer mode, who are much more dangerous than human players using the rear gun in multiplayer. Why? Because they never miss a shot.

Finally, there are only two ways to completely resolve these objections, and that's to either force everyone into a single PvP mode, or else lock characters into separate PvE and PvP versions of the Galaxy. This isn't going to happen. It's not how the game is described in the DDA's. It's not what all the Kickstarter backers signed up for, and the game is going into the final test stages before release under the current system... which is a pretty strong hint, guys. So why are we arguing about it?

 

[DancesWithHogs]

Let's see. How long have you been around? How many hours of gametime so you have that have convinced you that NPCs are no threat? It seems more a deeply held belief than anything more. People struggle even with the 2nd single player scenario, and I'm very doubtful about you yourself having played through Incursion.

NPCs are no threat currently, because beta 1 broke the FA-off speed bleed-off. The "no threat" comes from the fact that you can boost and escape interdiction. It doesn't mean that they would be pushovers in actual combat. I'd like to see you take on even a single NPC Cobra in a Type 6 or a Hauler, or two well armed Cobras in a Cobra. Blowing up federal Condors at the distress beacon in a pimped out Viper doesn't give you a good handle on the NPC threat range. Honestly, I have a hard time believing you know what you are talking about. It aounds more like dogma than actual combat experience talking.

Your whole caserests on "NPCs are no threat", and you suggest casually flying type 9 loads through a Federal blockade in solo mode.

Have you ever actually flown a space cow? Have you somehow seen the future, and know how effective system blockades by actual navies will be?

1. The developer has said that NPCs won't be as much of a challenge as players. Fact.

2. As I said, players should have the greater influence over galactic affairs than NPCs

3. Yes I've flown/smuggled in a space cow.

4. Gotten in dogfights in sidewinders, eagles, vipers, and I've run from a fair share of.

Finally, I don't see how ad hominem attacks help your position.

 

[StayFrosty]

Indeed, it will - however player bleed due to increasing perceived toxicity in the All Group would have the same effect.

If the all group is bad, yes that could happen.

If it's bad. It's like the whole point of my post. There are ways to preventing it from becoming a "PvP hell" (a much proper term), such as actively trying to reverse the balance, making it a "PvE/PvP paradise". At least we can be sure that doing nothing won't lead to the desired outcome, and that maybe we should all play together and wish for the best before deciding that it's bad.

Some already wonder where is everyone, so let's not make it even worse before the game is released.

Can you please explain: "when it tackles the problem of griefing with its sandbox approach"?

Most of griefing happens in games that subject you to rules, as part of a simplification of an otherwise much more complex mechanic, and those rules obviously come with flaws, and there's no way to circumvent them. In a sandbox, there's no rules, only consequences to actions, and everything is simulated: there's no victory condition, no friendly fire, no respawn... and in case of a dispute, anyone can be shot at, so every problem can be dealt with.

Griefing possibilities are hugely reduced, and attempting it only presents a huge risk for the griefer. Griefing rarely ever exists in sandboxes.

One difference between PvE and PvP is that some PvP players will, no doubt, almost exclusively select players as targets simply because they are players (you know, those that claim that NPCs are no challenge and the unpredictability of a player opponent is where it's at - regardless of the disparity in ships and equipment) whereas NPCs should attack all other ships without taking into account the nature of the pilot.

Indeed, that's one difference. Yet we're yet again caring far too much about what others think as if it made any difference (do you wonder what NPCs think?), and considering a possible occurrence of a rare event. That's hardly a huge difference.

Indeed it does please both sides, it provides mechanisms to avoid unwanted player interaction - I expect there to be some *very* large private groups. That's making use of Frontier's hard work - they pitched and have included the grouping system as promised.

Just as much as one huge open group would, on top of using all those great elements punishing criminals and unwarranted aggressivity. And then we cycle back to the previous arguments of "why would you avoid players", "the community will suffer if fragmented", and so on.

Which reasons are those? Some may wish to avoid other players simply because they can't be bothered with the CoD players' approach to online play.

Reasons born from impressions of the beta, and gross exaggeration of minor phenomenons mostly.

.... or simply that they are sand castle builders and not sand castle kickers (or even those that go about throwing sand in everyone elses' eyes).

Well if there was no one to kick sand castles, there would be no need to rebuild them every day. Or maybe we should stop with inaccurate comparisons.

 

[macdog]

Finally, there are only two ways to completely resolve these objections, and that's to either force everyone into a single PvP mode, or else lock characters into separate PvE and PvP versions of the Galaxy.

I think there are more than 2 ways to address some of these points. Kinda depends on what the perceived problem is though. For example, a lot of the discussion in this thread has focussed on solo/open toggle. What I personally think is flawed in this implementation is that I think it will inevitably lead to some tasks always being performed in solo, and others in open. My opinion is that isn't good. An example of how to address this without either pvp lock, or the pve/pvp split is to tweak some of the environmentals in each mode (same universe though). An example could be a trading tax which is less/zero in open, now there is an incentive to trade in open. Thats just one example, I can think of more, and I'm sure others could think of better options. Just making the point that there may be other ways to get the best of both worlds, without "ruining anyone's game".

This isn't going to happen. It's not how the game is described in the DDA's. It's not what all the Kickstarter backers signed up for, and the game is going into the final test stages before release under the current system... which is a pretty strong hint, guys.

This seems a fairly bold statement. I think I have read the relevant DDA posts covering these items and must admit I don't think its that explicit on some of the areas discussed here. Unless all of this was very well defined during the kickstarter campaign I don't think you (or I) can really say what the backers signed up for (even if you were a backer yourself).

Of course there is a decent chance I have missed the relevant DDA thread and this is all very clear somewhere! I would genuinely appreciate a link if there is one.

So why are we arguing about it?

Indeed, although it takes at least 2 to argue. I don't feel I am arguing with anyone really. The OP asked why anyone would play in open, and we have kinda gone down that rabbit hole.

 

[macdog]

One difference between PvE and PvP is that some PvP players will, no doubt, almost exclusively select players as targets simply because they are players (you know, those that claim that NPCs are no challenge and the unpredictability of a player opponent is where it's at - regardless of the disparity in ships and equipment) whereas NPCs should attack all other ships without taking into account the nature of the pilot.

Indeed, that's one difference. Yet we're yet again caring far too much about what others think as if it made any difference (do you wonder what NPCs think?), and considering a possible occurrence of a rare event. That's hardly a huge difference.

There is also another answer to this (whilst I also agree with Frosty's). This is addressable with the right balancing of game mechanics. If the penalties for aggression are done right, then "mindless" killing of players with lesser ships/equipment would become a very rare event. The aggressor should have a risk:reward decision to make. That will encourage the "right" type of pvp as opposed to the "grief" style pvp that many are clearly worried about.

Game balancing is tricky, so not saying getting this right first time is likely. But it is possible to adjust the slider in both directions to get something that should feel right to a large section of the player base.

 

[DancesWithHogs]

This is addressable with the right balancing of game mechanics. If the penalties for aggression are done right, then "mindless" killing of players with lesser ships/equipment would become a very rare event. The aggressor should have a risk:reward decision to make. That will encourage the "right" type of pvp as opposed to the "grief" style pvp that many are clearly worried about.

Agreed, if there are game mechanics to add proper consequences to psychopathic behavior then Open play won't be the murder fest that people are afraid of. Then, toggling into solo won't need to be a constant option.

 

[Pappy55uk]

I like to play online when it works.. I never attack anyone who is not wanted and only do so if i have a chance of winning.

 

[Plaxinov]

I'll tell you why you should play online.

Because if you played solo, you'd never get to try and gank people outside of freeport with your buddy and have a manned viper come screeching in on your partner at more than half a kilometer per second, and blow his ass up in about an instant, leaving you to dodge that [snip] and scramble your ass back inside to escape certain doom.

You'd never have a cobra come in on you and act uninterested, leaving you to try and drag your fancy new ship back to station with a full cargo hold only to have every single one of his numerous lasers open up on you at once, quickly shattering your shield and leaving you to swirl and dodge almost helplessly as the mass restriction took its toll on your ship's charge time. Never will you be blown up by the hands of another person and return to Azeban basically broke, back in your [snip] sidewinder.

Because Online is [snip] awesome, and everyone should play it

 

[Robert Maynard]

If the all group is bad, yes that could happen.

Indeed.

If it's bad. It's like the whole point of my post. There are ways to preventing it from becoming a "PvP hell" (a much proper term), such as actively trying to reverse the balance, making it a "PvE/PvP paradise".

All of the required mechanics may well already be in Frontier's plan - just not implemented yet.

At least we can be sure that doing nothing won't lead to the desired outcome, and that maybe we should all play together and wish for the best before deciding that it's bad.

We don't need to do anything until Frontier have all of the game mechanics in place and the balancing has happened.

Some already wonder where is everyone, so let's not make it even worse before the game is released.

People will always wonder where everyone is - the game area is immense and players do not all play at the same time of day.

The different online modes are in place - players can choose to play in whichever mode that they want. The only way of artificially increasing the population of the All Group (in the short term at least) would be to force all players to play there by restricting their choices of how they want to play.

Most of griefing happens in games that subject you to rules, as part of a simplification of an otherwise much more complex mechanic, and those rules obviously come with flaws, and there's no way to circumvent them.

I though that griefing was all about circumventing rules - or at least using game mechanics in unintended ways?

In a sandbox, there's no rules, only consequences to actions, and everything is simulated: there's no victory condition, no friendly fire, no respawn... and in case of a dispute, anyone can be shot at, so every problem can be dealt with.

So, if there are no rules then there are no rules to break therefore there is no griefing? Sounds like Utopia.

Griefing possibilities are hugely reduced, and attempting it only presents a huge risk for the griefer. Griefing rarely ever exists in sandboxes.

In an idealised situation - however we will be playing the game with players from the real world.

Indeed, that's one difference. Yet we're yet again caring far too much about what others think as if it made any difference (do you wonder what NPCs think?), and considering a possible occurrence of a rare event. That's hardly a huge difference.

NPCs don't think. Caring what other people think is human nature - except that empathetic response in an online world can be ignored / disregarded / suppressed by players as there is no RL consequence to their behaviour.

Just as much as one huge open group would, on top of using all those great elements punishing criminals and unwarranted aggressivity. And then we cycle back to the previous arguments of "why would you avoid players", "the community will suffer if fragmented", and so on.

Those craving a massive online community may contend that the community may suffer if fragmented. However, every player who leaves because they do not enjoy the community is a fragment. Better for Frontier if those players continue to play the game (possibly buying the odd cosmetic, now and again) rather than leave.

Some players wish to avoid players whose play-style clashes with their own. Other players actively seek out players whose play-style is different from their own - to attack / destroy them.

Reasons born from impressions of the beta, and gross exaggeration of minor phenomenons mostly.

Of course. We'll see how things change when players need to take reputations and rank into account from Beta 2.0 onwards.

Well if there was no one to kick sand castles, there would be no need to rebuild them every day.

You see, the builder don't rebuild unless the kickers destroy.... However, the builders will simply build something else in the event that there is no repair work to do. All the while avoiding the attentions of the sand throwers, who nobody likes.

Or maybe we should stop with inaccurate comparisons.

Matter of opinion, old chap.

 

[StayFrosty]

i choose to ignore your baiting, out of respect to the requests of the forum mods in similar situations in the past.

You are misrepresenting my position, my background as a gamer and my character. Good day.

I'm only basing it on your posts.

As usual, you just give up when you run out of arguments. Unless expecting a proper reply is "baiting" to you. And once again we're ending this discussion at a point where you're still using the words "playerkilling" and "ganking" improperly, and where you're speculating wildly about the state of the community in the final game based on a beta lacking more than half of features and content, while completely ignoring, without even arguing, all the elements that aim to make PvP a fun activity for everyone.

Heaven forbid different people might have different opinions on what "fun" is.

You can't just do anything you want in an online game, it's only relative to other players. This is why there are things such as team sports, so that people can play together, because they can't all decide of the rules, otherwise they'd all be playing alone in a corner.

Funny, looks like it's working to me, I just joined a private group and I love it.
I'm glad you don't have any decision on what I do in ED. I like solo online, I like my group, for me it's working just fine. Now I've decided to do something else, leave this thread and never look back. Please carry on though, don't let my leaving stop you. Best of luck too you Frosty.

I wasn't under the impression that I replied to you, nor does it seem that you understood what you replied to.

I am lost.... I must admit whilst reading a lot of this thread i have scan read much and skipped some, so apologies if I am wrong and I am taking this out of context.......

however.....

Surely it is you here who is not liking the idea of THIS game and you ARE complaining that it should be changed?.

ie groups online, solo online and all online are already implemented and will be swappable & is an advertised feature of the core game. As I understand it you are one of the ones who is not happy about this.

solo offline is not here yet but it IS coming.....

Because groups don't solve the problem, they only circumvent it. The problem is here to stay until we deal with it.

I'm fine with the game myself, and I'm not complaining that anything should be changed, I'm only saying we should at least try to all play together before taking this terrible decision of playing separately which would quite certainly kill the community.

 

[W0OCQCK]

I disagree with the imposition that we should all try playing together all the time. It's simply not a working solution in my opinion.

They're are all sorts of people that play games for all sorts of reasons. My personal reasons aren't any better than anyone's, Life is life, games are games, I like to keep it that way. Many of my reasons are personal, and no ones business but my own.

The reality of the all play option, I think this will always be the most dangerous place to play. You will never be safe, no matter where you are. This is mostly because anyone can shoot you for any reason any time, not matter what punishment they implement in the all play option, many players simply wont care.

Basically there is a group of players that play for no other reason than to impose there will on others, they especially like to ruin someones day. Many of them are exceptionally bright and this is what they enjoy to do. They simply can't be controlled as they will make a science of finding the cracks and flaws in the game, (every game has them) and live there. Rules and punishments simply can't be written in to the game to control this. The best way to control this is with out rules. When you take the rules away, you take away there cover, and expose them to all the other PVP'ers in the game. They utterly hate this, and this is why you see such a raging debate here.

Many of these folks are master debaters, they will drag you into arguments that have nothing to do with anything. Things like defining what a new player is. Seems to me that anyone playing in all play should never be considered as a new player. New players should stay away from there, stay in safer groups, or solo, until there ready to face there own mortality, then decide to either go to all play, or not. It's up to them.

The options written into the game thus far control this, and ensure everyone has the opportunity to find something they enjoy. Wars have been fought in the real world to allow people the privilege to choose what they want. It seems simple enough to me more choices are always a good thing. Some here really want to take that choice away, or punish you for making that choice.

 

[macdog]

At first I was wondering who in thread you may have been referring to and then got to this...

Many of these folks are master debaters, they will drag you into arguments that have nothing to do with anything. Things like defining what a new player is.

...and remember our small exchange regarding the definition of a noob. Anyway I wasn't trolling or anything, and in the scheme of things seemed a very minor point either way. I guess I'll take the "master debater" as a compliment, although I don't actually agree for a minute. Your first contribution to this thread (that I noticed) was quoting me on a few things very selectively and I would suggest out of context. I called you out on that and you couldn't or wouldn't respond.

So I guess you somehow have me in this bracket

Basically there is a group of players that play for no other reason than to impose there will on others, they especially like to ruin someones day.

I honestly don't know how you could have come to that conclusion from what I have posted. Pretty much my main contribution to this thread has been:
1. I think the current mechanics (which I have repeatedly acknowledged will probably change as beta, etc...) will lead to all PvE in Solo/Private and arena style PvP in All Open.
2. I have been suggesting mechanics that could be used both to resolve 1. and to reduce "griefing".

However you seem to be painting me, and people like me, as some form of criminal genius.

You know what, I do actually know what you are talking about and I'll even go as far as agreeing that people who more or less fit that description do exist in various online gaming communities. What puzzles me is how from the posts on this forum you have managed to put me into that bracket.

I can only assume you have seen only 1 or 2 of my posts, taken them out of context and jumped to some conclusions. We all do it, I have even done it in thread and apologized to the person involved (in this thread). I don't expect I'll get an apology from you, but that's fine.

New players should stay away from there, stay in safer groups, or solo, until there ready to face there own mortality, then decide to either go to all play, or not. It's up to them.

You see, I have never had an issue with this. I imagine from what you have posted though this might surprise you. You stated the All Open will probably be the most difficult mode and that my guess also (although none of us know for sure yet of course). If you read what I have been posting in full, you will see that I am concerned that the current mechanics will make All Open a bloodbath; since people will only join it when they want to kill a player. They will do all their trading, etc.. in solo as there is almost zero reason not too. It just makes sense.

So what I am actually advocating is for mechanics that I believe will give us all a more balanced All Open environment. Not one where players who have grinded CR 100M in solo jump into with their pimped out flavour of the month ship, with no other objective than to hunt players wherever they can. Thats why I repeatedly state that I think this will make All Open = Arena PvP mode.

 

[W0OCQCK]

Take it easy Macdog, no offense intended. My sincere apologizes. :S

 

[macdog]

Take it easy Macdog, no offense intended. My sincere apologizes. :S

Apology accepted. Thank you.

I hope you do genuinely see how painting someone in that light may not be well received (well at least if its not true).