UKFatGuy77

Hiya, Firstly, I really like the 'My Territory' map option and the clicky access to scans. I would however like a map tab for territory units to make finding your own or org units much easier. I doubt it would take much dev time to implement and would be a great boon and quality of life improvement for people who actually have territory.

Hmm...i may have just fixed my own problem....It would appear that Microsoft game bar had been enabled and after turning it off has somehow unscrewed my menus. Anyway its probably worth noting for other folks that microsoft game bar might in some way beshit the DU menus etc.

Hiya, How come the menus and UI are suddenly all laggy and crap? My PC isn't struggling to run DU and my mouse pointer and windows menus are working just fine as is DU itself. Unfortunately whenever i open my inventory or any of the crafting menus etc the mouse pointer gets all laggy and awful. so far as i can tell its affecting all the windowed elements, such as RDMS, talent queue, inventory, market pretty much anything which relies on mouse control. Thoughts?

That will do for me ? Thanks

I've heard a few things about future updates but was wondering if there is any kind of timescale associated with them... now i'm not wanting solid dates and obviously there could always be problems leading to delays and so forth but without some idea of the time scales involved it kind of hard to plan anything or prepare 'in game'. If so then 0.24 (which i believe is missions, and org wallets and a few graphics upgrades) which doesn't really take much prep for the player side) So are we looking at days, weeks, months, months & months or years? Like i said specifics aren't really an issue and any of the suggested options will do. 0.25 (which I believe is territory warfare and automated mining units and the like) again are we talking in days, weeks, months, months & months or years after 0.24? Obviously this is the biggie and likely to require much more in game prep so its really this aspect I'm most concerned about. That's all...i don't think i'm asking too much UKFATGUY

Just a quickie, Firstly I actually like the idea, I do think that people should be in some way rewarded for participation...Sadly, I have no idea how it would be implemented long term though as there are only so many skills for mining etc. so if i were a dedicated miner i'd just mine for a month then i'd be awesome and further mining yields few rewards (assuming i'm not interested in doing anything else with that toon) However, the assumption that people need more than one computer to run more than one account is not true...virtual machines are a thing and do work with DU..i'd know, i tried it. Additionally its also it is very possible for one person to do two things at once...for example i have a pilot and my main toon. The pilot alt spends a lot of time slow boating stuff around while my main does pretty much everything else. Does it convey any in game advantages for me.. I have to say not really, i know a fair number of other players and orgs so i could just as easily get one of them to move crap for me, I just don't think that something as simple as ferrying stuff around warrants hassling someone else to do it for me when doing it myself is easy enough. Is having multiple accounts P2W? Again no I don't really think so given that a 3 month subscription costs less than the cost of a fast food order each month, and if you can't afford that then lets face it you have bigger RL problems than not having a DU alt. that brings us to Bots....i think its inevitable that bots WILL become a thing. NQ can try all it likes to detect them via security software etc but the people who sell and use bot software are just as determined so its going to be an ongoing problem if DU gets enough big enough to warrant their (the botters) investment. Lastly, the passive skill system lends itself to character trading which is where you will find your main P2W issues. Regardless of it being against the user agreement if DU becomes big enough to make it RL profitable then some their party websites will inevitably start either trading characters. Bringing in a 'participation' aspect of the game just leads to power levelling websites instead of character trading. Soo....all in all i think its a nice idea but i don't think it will solve any game issues as...I'll be quiet now....

Title pretty much spells it out. I imagine its already been suggested but i've not seen it anywhere (not that i've looked all that hard) but currently i like the scan results thingy in the map but having to have them in your inventory really sucks when you're working with other miners in the same area. If you want to have people working together rather than as singletons it makes sense to allow players to coordinate their efforts more easily rather that all just running off in different directions also can we please have the ability to annotate or rename scan results...i'm pretty sure i have seen that suggested but i figured asking twice is better than not at all TTFN UKFatGuy

Basically, an element which removes you from radar detection but likewise prevents you from locking a target. I would however recommend not falling into the EVE trap of having them last forever and be utterly impenetrable. That said i do like the idea that exceeding an arbitrary change in velocity breaks or prevents cloaking.

oh yeh, its far from a fully fleshed out idea. I just liked the thought that it gives non pvp toons a way to strike back and be a little vindictive...after all PvP should never be just one way. Too many games think that the act of 'taking something' from a weaker person in some way entitles them to possess that thing and never bother to put in any ways for passive players to strike back. When in real life, petty revenge and good old fashioned spite are very much alive and well even among the most placid players.

In a game where pirates are out there intent upon stealing everyone stuff. I think that weaponised or booby-trapped containers would emerge. Essentially, you either have some kind of pin code or passphrase and if its entered incorrectly then the pirate is greeted with an almighty AoE bang or the contents are destroyed or whatever.

I've been thinking and currently the only reason to own a territory tile is to deploy static constructs. Yes I accept that will be changing sometime soon but I do like the idea that someone could 'work' a territory tile or install some kind of static construct which increases the seed value of the tile or speeds up the respawn rate of the ores etc. (Yes I know that ores do not currently respawn, but at some point that will have to change and I have said this before many times addressing this sooner rather than later is always best). Anyway that's pretty much it. I like the idea that someone could start with a crappy tile and make it 'Better' somehow or start with an awesome tile and make it Awesome+

Well i'm not about to get into yet another pointless argument but i will point out your staggering lack of foresight & vision. Your entire premise hinges upon the current state of the game and *does not* allow for any change of circumstances. Currently Territory is basically worthless. It does nothing other than allow you to place static cores. This is because unclaimed tiles can be mined and so forth. The upcoming mining units, territory warfare and presumably many other future updates which will each likely add value (large or small) to any owned territory will lead to the increased uptake of any such territory. so yes, at the current uptake using the current state of the game there is no real reason to worry about running out of territory or anything else. Sadly, that paradigm is about to shift...and in a VERY big way. thus you can expect other related aspects of the game to shift in the same direction. So like i said before 260k tiles might look like a lot but i think its you which is failing to see how small that number actually is when you start dividing it by many thousands. finally, I was under the impression that this forum was here to discuss ideas....ideas include avoidable errors in judgement. An example of that is... If at any point in the future NQ decide to implement some kind of loss of territory via the means i've described etc. They are going to annoy a *lot* of players maybe not on the scale of the schematics debacle but, should territory end up being as valuable as I expect then still a fair few thousand at least. Thus it becomes necessary to address and plan for those issues NOW. All it requires is for someone to spend a little time, decide on a policy, and stick to it.....unlike other game developers which constantly change their mind and get a bad rep for it. Well that's me done on this topic, I've posted an idea, defended it and that's that. TTFN

Agreed ?

Another discussion again led to this. Basically its been stated that there are roughly 260k tiles on Alioth which is apparently going to stay a safe zone for ever. That sounds like a lot but it isn't. So for example, I join the game as a new player, scrape together a few pennies and plod off to Alioth to claim some territory. Once I get there, I claim a modest 3 tiles because its cheap... I later leave the game for some reason...In its current state those tiles are gone, effectively removed from the game forever...If we assume a modest turn over of say 500 transitory players a month then that's 1500 tiles per month that may as well have been deleted from the game. given the number of safe zone tiles which more active players are likely to claim it won't take long for the safe zone planets to fill up... Soo. I'm suggesting some way NQ have some way of reclaiming those tiles.

Right this discussion has gone off track....So.... Is there or is there not a safe zone? Is there or is there not a Safe Zone around planets? Do you transition between them? If so then there *Is* such a thing as partial. If you can add a safe zone around a planet and add in its atmosphere etc then you can also change other aspects of the game in localised areas. The big question is how difficult it is to do it. If its too difficult then this entire thread becomes moot...if not then if offers a way for NQ to mass test aspects of the game without screwing up a live server too badly..

Err.......Yeh and for a hell of a lot longer.....I've run a Solo Corp, then a Small Corp then we moved to Null Sec and ran with some of the big boys. All in all we did fairly well for ourselves.....we had to quit for RL reasons...bit sad really. Unfortunately, I know that to be waaaaaay wrong. Given that *most* EVE players run multiple accounts......like *LOTS* of accounts their actual player base is a tiny fraction of that total number and out of their 25000 active players online at any one time me and a 3 friends made up at least 25 of those and we knew other people that pissed all over us when it came to multiboxing. You also fail to consider that EVE has no logout timer so loads of people just leave themselves logged in...need I go on? I can even tell you why everyone leaves themselves logged in if you like. Did you actually look at your own numbers. Like you said Alioth has what 259000 tiles.....so 25,900 players with 10 tiles each or 17,267 with 15 Tiles.... So care to run your wonderful umbers again or do you honestly think that once mining units become a thing (and i'm assuming they will need the owner to actually own the territory its deployed in) that each player is going to be happy with their 1 free tile? If so, I think you grossly underestimate peoples ambitions and/or their need for raw materials. I KNOW the passive income from 30 tiles won't be enough to satisfy *my* (not our, not our orgs) ore requirements and I'm a total pleb in DU when it comes to industrial capacity. So how many tiles are large corps going to need. Really? Do you not see it? I'll humour this and pretend that isn't the most short sighted question I've ever heard. So you get that a territory is as *PLANET THING* right?. In case you hadn't noticed there's this other thing above it called SPACE....which can have *GREAT BIG* stations in it. Now i'm assuming that In order for territory warfare to be a thing the safe zone around planets will need to go away. Atmospheric radar does not work in Space and Space Radar does not work in atmosphere. Territory is useless if you can't transport things in and our of it.....Need I go on?.....and please don't suggest running shipments our through the atmosphere that's just as dumb. So i'm assuming you've never attended a burn Jita event...or been blown up by *YOUR OWN ALLIES* because the campers were bored and knew that it didn't matter. Also its NOT bad for business because there are no consequences. Large corps camp stuff all the time i think you need to get out more....and like i said even when they bag one of your jump freighters it doesn't make a difference because they are the ones dictating the rules. Am I.....God? Well if i'd know that i'd just click my fingers and fix everything. If you'd bothered to actually pay attention to what i've been saying you might have noticed that these things *are inevitable* and nothing anyone does is going to make a difference. However, EVE is a total screw up and DU doesn't have to be. I honestly believe there is a way to make all the proposed content work and make a game for everyone not just *you*. Saying that anyone not infested in PvP is playing the wrong game is basically telling 66% of the players to leave. I seem to remember DU being about BUILDING a new society. I'm pretty sure i didn't sign up for CoD and neither did a lot of other players. After all if i'm going to be candid DU is currently boring. You have 4 aspects of play...flying somewhere...which boils down to staring at wizzy lines for 4 hours . Mining which can be quite therapeutic. Building stuff which is kinda interesting the first 50 times and PvP which barely works. The allure of the game comes from what it *could* be. I doubt i'm along in wanting to help NQ make it better and not have them make stupid decisions. So i'll say again I do not want DU to NOT have territory warfare......I actually like the idea. I do *not* want DU to abandon PvP. But neither do I want DU to alienate all solo or small group players. That is a bad business decision. That said if NQ does *not* want them then by all means let those players know so they can cancel their sub and stop wasting their money on a game they doesn't care about nor want them. so i'll also ask again why is starting with a partial roll out a bad idea?

I can only assume you have not played EVE! I think you are entirely forgetting human nature, greed and underestimating just how pathetic and petty people actually are. Firstly, again how many unclaimed systems are there in EVE? So what makes you think territory warfare will turn out an y differently. Oh yeh....its going to be weighted in the defenders favour....what so much that a solo person can fend off say a dozen assailants? what about 10 times that number? Even if that is the case large or even smallish bands of pirates will easily be able to interdict any territory they want in order to render it useless (remember cloaky campers in EVE?). Then to cut a very long story short and get to a point a hell of a lot quicker...I think you're ignoring just how many so called PvP players actually *WANT* a real fight. Because most of them just want to gang up and bully someone or something with absolutely zero risk to themselves......essentially piracy. Pirates don't want to fight warships they want to steal someone else's stuff and blow up whatever crappy PvE hauler passes by.....then they decry themselves the kings of PvP when quite literally anyone with even a single pop gun could have done the same thing. So who do you think those throngs of losers are going to attack? Huge mega-corps with morons of their own? Nope, its the little guy....I think you're mixing up 'tough for a solo player to own a tile and defend it if needed?' with Impossible or at the very least so difficult its not even worth trying.....which actually amounts to the same thing. As for there always being room.....So when we get to 'a whole new solar system'....is that going to be safe? I doubt it, will the warp in point be camped and interdicted by the first mega corp to get there.....absolutely......soooo that places us back to were back to where do all the PvE players go? Oh yeh right i forgot all that room on alioth/madis and thades....which *WILL* taken by whoever gets there first because claiming territory is cheap like you said and even large orgs want somewhere to got hats safe every once in a while...especially with all those free juicy resources flowing from mining units ...so..that's the big orgs..new players go??? So all that aside...my main point is still that large sweeping changes are going to really mess with the game....and alienating large percentages of the player base is not a smart course of action for any company. Territory warfare if its just rolled out without a *LOT* of thought will cost NQ players, mining units if rolled out are going to render a third of the game pointless.....lets face it the game only has mining, building and a somewhat functional PVP system, no missions, no NPC's no real interaction, hell fighters are useless because cockpits are crap. Even rolling out a new solar system is going to annoy players who then can't go there without becoming someone slave...We don't need another EVE..we need something BETTER.

I think either you're not getting what i'm trying to say or i'm saying it badly...because from what i can tell you've just made my point for me. Regardless i'll start at the beginning and try again. 1) My references to EVE High Sec, Low Sec, and Null sec have *nothing* at all to do with the presence or absence of NPCs. My point was that in those areas there are different levels of PvP engagement. High Sec is supposedly secure (even though it isn't), Low Sec is basically where traditional PvP takes place and Null Sec allows players to do whatever they want including fight over...you guessed it...territory. 2) As for EVE solo and/or small org gameplay.....err how many small orgs in eve own *ANY* territory. I'll help you with that....The answer is *None*. Not a single claimable system exists outside of the control of the main half dozen or so factions. Yes there are a few which appear to be independent but they aren't. In all those situations they exist because the large orgs have *given* them that territory. The exact same thing will happen anywhere in DU where territory warfare is implemented. So will there be somewhere for Solo and Small Org players to go....err...yes Alioth and perhaps Madis and Thades (although i'd heard that madis and thades were likely to loose their safe zone status further down the line). So other than that small orgs will have to 'Rent' the use of territory from the large orgs who own all the territory on the 'Good' Planets in order to get any resources of note. That leads to the same snowballing effect. I also feel compelled to Add...Renting is not solo play, neither is it truly small org play. Its essentially boils down to players getting an ingame job where everything they do its regulated by their corporate overlords with whatever rules they dream up. 3) You said 'there will always be room'. I have to ask have you actually looked at the planets recently...Madis is what 15% settled and some of the outer planets are getting that way? If you add to that the fact that Territory is currently worthless as anyone can mine anywhere which isn't claimed then it doesn't take the foresight of the gods to realise that the moment Territory Tiles become valuable and having adjacent tiles provides bonuses or whatever was proposed, most of the the remaining tiles are going to vanish surprisingly quickly. Shortly after that territory belonging to small orgs and singletons will be conquered driving all the none PvP Oriented or antisocial players back to the safe zone.....where they can forever languish on whatever territory they were able to grap prior to the big orgs grabbing everything in sight. 4) NQ has no way to stop players interacting outside of their game. Thus there will always be large orgs and large groups of players (usually the PvP crowd) wanting to band together to be the best or become top dog or whatever silliness is currently the trend. Furthermore, even if NQ took away all of the Large orgs factories, schematics.....hell everything they own. It wouldn't make a difference (other than to annoy then and inconvenience them for a few weeks). They would have the manpower to bounce back with frightening swiftness, after all that's why countries and communities exist in RL. Finally, My Idea was..... I genuinely do not believe that a test server is going to give NQ the information they need, nor the large scale testing environment they want. I'm not saying don't do it nor that test environments are an inherently bad idea. I just think NQ should not put all their eggs in one basket nor be too disappointed if it doesn't lead to the feedback they need. Thus, my suggestion was to roll out certain game aspects in certain 'Pre-Notified' locations. Then lure the appropriate players to those locations via some means. That way NQ get the players where they need them and those players can always retreat back to somewhere less 'Broken' if the systems don't work as planned etc.

Err....Why? EVE Online manages pretty well with High Sec, Low Sec & Null Sec. While I'll admit it EVE is hardly a game worthy of being put on a pedestal. The concept behind those areas is pretty sound even if the implementation is awful. Furthermore, there's already a 'Safe Zone' which seamlessly transitions into a PvP area and from what I can tell there's another transition once you enter a stellar bodies gravity well. So I'm assuming those boundaries already exist and that imposing differing 'rules' in different areas is not the nightmare it sounds like. As for an imbalance. Its clear that large Orgs are always going to out perform single players and small Orgs in every aspect of the game. Furthermore, The implementation of any type of territory warfare will guarantee that *ALL* rare/valuable resources will end up in the hands of Large Orgs as they will have the numbers and industrial capacity to simply take whatever they want from 'little guy' competitors. That fact alone will cause a snowball effect of ever increasing capability among large Orgs and ever decreasing capability of anything smaller in scale. That is exactly what happens in EVE and its inevitable that it will happen in DU. So if that's the case (which it is/will be) rather than simply loosing all the solo or small group players, give them a real choice and somewhere to go that suits their playstyle.

I actually made this suggestion as an example in another topic but figured it was probably worthy of its own Topic. Anyway, the Idea is that instead of rolling out a server wide change such as mining units and/or territory warfare. If possible just choose a low population planet or perhaps one of each of the planets moons and enable territory warfare there. If you combine this with increased resource availability on those planets/moons or some other benefit to having such territory you can then you get to see how a mass implementation is likely to turn out. Yes a public test server should *theoretically* have the same effect but I don't actually believe it will provide the feedback you need. After all fully exploring any large scale changes takes a lot of time and if done on a test server has no rewards. Lots of players will just ignore the test server and be surprised when the rollout to the main server actually comes along, which leads to all the same problems as not consulting the players in the first place. Meanwhile, having the map cut up into sections such as the Safe zone, A PvP zone and full blown PvP Zone with varying/escalating resource availability and rewards provides all of the players somewhere to play the type of game they actually want to play.

Now I'm a 'New Guy' so I'm assuming the ATV was some kind of user group which didn't go according to plan. Anyway, while the idea of a public test scenario (I'm assuming this means a test server) is again ok in principle, I'm not entirely sure its going to work as intended. My experience thus far with assorted test servers is that in order to fully grasp many of the proposed changes etc. It takes a lot of real life time and with it being a test environment gives no reward. Thus people still tend to avoid it. That said some people to try out those servers and they do provide some input but i can't say of cost effective such servers actually are. My question is....How hard it it to do a *partial roll out* of major changes like territory warfrare and mining units on the main server? For example. if you chose a single low population planet or one of each planets moons. Then enable those aspects of the game just on those planets players can go there and try it out. Likewaise if mining units only worked on planets where territory warfare was enabled then you even have an ingame benefit from engaging in that aspect of the game. Likewise you would then have a large test environment in which to work out any major problems before it fully goes live. Personally, given that different aspects of the game i'd take a leaft of of EVE's book and havea large safe zone, a PvP zone and then a full territory warfare zone so players could engage in whatever level of gameplay they feel they want. The main problem with suggestions like mine is that we as users don't have any idea what level of control devs have over the environment and how hard it is to parcel out pieces of the map etc.

To be fair on the Devs nobody can expect a someone to match the ingenuity of even 1000 players never mind however many players there actually are. However, they shouldn't have to. I get the impression were both on the same track and would probably like NQ to slow down a little and involve the players a lot more especially with regards to the reasoning behind certain decisions. For example, Schematics.....I'm pretty sure that I heard somewhere that part of the plan regarding them was to eventually allow the players to research them or make them better in some way....which is a nice idea and adds an extra element of gameplay to the game, but, you can't do that if schematics don't exist in the first place. That aside, and slightly off topic. I'll admit to being a little concerned and incredibly annoyed that certain players weren't immediately banned. For example, the players which dropped dispensers at the districts and outside marketplaces claiming that you had to click them in order to receive your daily money. All that did was take advantage of the NEWEST players as anyone who'd played for any time at all knew you got your pennies automatically. The people who did that actively damage the chances of the game retaining new players. After all what are new players going to think, I doubt they are going to have a good impression of a game which allows the exploitation of noobs logging in for the first time....Again though this happens in EVE and CCP do nothing. I doubt very much DU wants a reputation anywhere near as bad as that of CCP

To be honest that idea in and of itself isn't terrible. That said you're right, people have already build huge factories that would need moving and the whole concept falls apart with the inclusion of Space Cores. again why bother fighting over a tile when you can build the industry in space. Personally, I find it easier and less harsh on fuel docking with a space station than i do farting about with re-entry and atmospheric effects. Sadly the answer to that is to nerf space cores.....But if you limit industrial capacity of space cores players will just put down more space cores to handle capacity. If you remove the ability for space cores to house industry then they just become less useful dynamic cores. The other issue with territory warfare being power generation related again leads to EVE Style MegaCorps which to outward appearances seem great but ingame they suck. In fact i think that style of play has already started. Wasn't there some big hoohar recently over some big org treating its players like crap. Anyway, i suppose my point is that while we're throwing out reasons why territory warfare etc won't work and generally sounding like doomsayers. We could instead be helping, offering solutions and other ideas. The problem is we can't do that if we aren't aware of the RL situation. Hell if the problem is proprietary knowledge then slap people with an NDA. Hell why not recruit a group of super users who can handle simple problems. Surely anything that gives the Devs more time is good. TTFN UKFatguy Obvious Inhabitant of cloud cuckoo land ?

Agreed. Although, I'm obviously not familiar with their current system framework etc but its often easier to implement new things once you have a basic framework in place so I suppose it could be possible. That said I'd prefer them to get the basic game working and make it robust enough to build on. Yes people want new things to do in game...lets face it at the moment there's building stuff, mining and kinda shooting...not a whole host of activities to keep everyone busy. So I can see an issue with player retention. But I suppose a lot of the players have lasted 3 years so far, so waiting a little longer isn't likely to scare them away....especially if the end result is really good If i were king of the world i'd just try to tackle one thing at a time. Patch it in, wait for the inevitable bugs then fix them. Next project.... So far it just seems that there is a lot of silly and easily avoidable mistakes being made. For example, Putting in schematics *before* org wallets is just plain lunacy. Implementing territory warfare with a barely functional PvP setup and shonky flight controls is again a bit silly. Match that with the fact that without resources respawning there isn't really any point to fighting over territory at all the whole project becomes pointless. Why would i claim a tile and spend money doing it if I can just raid any unclaimed tile I choose and even if i did claim a tile the resources are finite....Its expenditure without gain? Again though the automated mining thingies will likely have to be deployed on a claimed tile. If they give too little resources they aren't going to be worth the investment and if they give too much to put miners out of business.....which is currently a 3rd of the game.....personally i'd address other activities first because getting that balance right is going to be hellishly difficult. Additionally, the moment territory warfare becomes a thing then I expect all the small orgs, individual miners and general peaceful folk are going to get hammered on all the PvP planets by a minority of PvP players who are then going to put down auto-miners and put said miners out of business.....given that lots of Industry/mining types aren't into PvP they are just going to leave the game.....after all what's the point in playing if you can't do what you want to do and all your buildings and factories etc have been blown up or stolen. Their only alternative will be to join some PvP MegaCorp (just like EVE Online) and become a slave. I just don't want this game to run into all the major problems EVE Online had....Unfortunately, so far DU almost seems to be actively *TRYING* to make all the same mistakes and encouraging all the worst aspects of EVE online with none of the mitigating factors.

Hiya, I've just been thinking and while I have a whole host of suggestions and questions...I can't help but think that all of them seem blindingly obvious (even without hindsight). For example...the 0.23 introduced both element degradation *AND* schematics. Both are huge changes and both affect the other...Surely anyone with even a modicum of sense could see that essentially resetting everyone's industrial capacity and then requiring them to replace the elements on their ships....elements they can not longer make....is going to cause a huge backlash among the community. When you pair that with the number of ways common control bugs and glitches can trash your ship through no fault of your own...then 0.23 seems insane. Now, I've worked on the development of new systems in the past and thus I know its very easy to overlook really obvious problems when you're too close to a project. The way we got around this was by getting a few bog basic users involved and instead of trying to wow them with our It wonders we just showed them the projects 'bare arse' along with all its warts. They then asked the really dumb questions we'd never even considered......That process didn't catch everything but it did help a hell of a lot and even let to some pretty wazzy ideas and systems. I expect this is technically what a QA team are supposed to do but ours focused more on the systems adherence to regulatory guidance rather than the impact and overall usability of the system. So....in conclusion get some users involved. Ones less interested in wowing a crowd and more interested in basic quality of life and transition management.....After all bringing schematics in a month or two before element degradation would have gone a lot smoother and probably caused a lot fewer complaints and rage quits. Thats all for now TTFN UKFatguy