Penwith

Actually, if/when I make an investment in something, I do not spend money that I cannot afford to lose or to lose my shit over should it go bust. I've done many Kickstarters, someone of which I canceled after I did more research, but that is only due diligence on my part. It's just the way I happen to look at life and how I spend money outside of necessities.

Do try to keep up. The primary consideration is the for the long-term, but short-term considerations must also be accounted and, if possible, resolved before they become an issue that will require a larger response in the future. One only need look at the shift in industry from 0.23 and see that had it been dealt with from the start of beta, the resultant anger and rage would have been much less. As this game grows, presumably with full release, there will be new players who venture off into pvp space, not fully realizing the hazards. There will be knowledgeable who, for whatever reasons, feel they need to or just want to hazard the risks anyways, and then there will be times that warp is just not on the table; I did mention that this could be in the form of flying through a gas cloud, but there are other possible reasons. Do I need to fully explain that the direction this game is going, or that at least JC is hinting at, will include more resources than just the solid ores and two gases that are currently in the game? But we do not even need to speculate as to that as the possibilities for why one is slowboating already exist. So, how is the disparity between an attacker and defender to be addressed? Which is where this suggestion presumably originated. Warp exists, without any real counter presently. However, reading dev comments throughout the forums, one can expect a counter to be added at some point. Thus, this takes the argument back to, how does a defender deal with being attacked when warp is out of the picture. Why it is out of the picture does not matter...at all...for this question. If an unarmed defender is in this above stated circumstance, should the only option left to them is to allow their ship to be destroyed/capture and their cargo looted? The argument of many, not just that of myself or the OP, is no. There should be various defensive mechanisms that would help increase survivability, to allow for the possibility of escape. There may be a need for a final resort to self-destruction, to deny resources that would fund the pirate who is currently attacking. In this case, should this self-destruct mechanism be free of interference and therefore unstoppable? I'm arguing to the contrary. The amount of financial loss from losing a ship and cargo is immaterial. It's the property of the player, losing any percentage, especially a continuing loss, is bad for business. The fact that warp engines are relatively cheap is also immaterial, because the argument revolves around situations where combat cannot be avoided. As it stands, right now, no defensive element exists that adds to the survivability of a ship in combat, except weapons, for which a dedicated freighter has little mass to spare. If the freighter is armed, giving up a portion of mass that would otherwise generate profits (ideally), that still does not add to its survivability when facing a ship designed to attack another ship. Where does that leave us as far as a balanced combat system for pvp? With all the advantages to an attacker. Now, if you have two players who consensually enter into combat, then that's fine.as they both understand the situation before battle. When combat occurs between two parties where one does not consent, that leaves a player feeling helpless (with the odd exception) and frustrated that there's nothing they can do...at all, except hope their opponent makes a serious mistake. Put in other terms, it's seal clubbing in an MMO. The attacker gets great joy, entertainment, and wealth from the activity, but the victim has no recourse and no choice, end of story.

Whereas ED was boring to me. You willing to sell off your industry and a discount? I'm building an industrial park for the purpose of helping new players get a start.

Thank you! Bookmarked and will be referenced almost daily.

It is a basic human right to keep the fruits of one's labor. So, having a similar expectation as a result of potentially thousands of hours of effort is not unexpected nor unreasonable, even within a game. Were this Rust, then there would be grounds for a totally different expectation, but after repeated "no more wipes before launch", sets the stage for the expectations that I and many others have. This was not a conditional statement on NQ's part, "no wipes between August 2020 until full release," btw. It is to be expected that during a beta, gameplay will change, but restarting the world is not a gameplay change. That said, there are several ways in which the economic imbalance can be addressed without eliminating everything. One of which is a progressively costly energy system which escalates based on the amount of elements one deploys in a base. There are more ways in which to do this, including a progressive tax on what is in our wallets. Or a tax based on our many hexes we've claimed. In the latter case, I'd be happy to pay that, given enough warning to prepare for it. The thousands of hours spent in total on designing ships, would be gone. Well, they can keep the BPs, then, is the counter-claim, but that's not a true wipe, now is it? So, those people with BPs of good ships will start with a tremendous advantage over others, as they will know exactly what works, ship-wise, etc., etc., etc. My personal sense of loss will be just that, and shared by a great many other players. Not a few, but a very large number. The reaction to 0.23 would be small beans in comparison.

Except people do, to get away from the mess on Alioth. There's no invincible mechanism. I did not refer to such, whether it apply to new players or salty veteran players. No one in this thread has asked for such. If you paid any attention to what I actually wrote, you'd see the argument more clearly.

Hell, the way pvp is right now, I am surprised there are as many as happen to claim to be, atm. As I mentioned, there needs to be a near-balance, and in the case of a self-destruct element, I provided some examples of how that could be overcome. Neither side of a contest should have an "I win" button. Whether it is good ship design and good game playing to have a warp drive is immaterial, it will happen, regardless. People will make poor choices, but beyond that as I stated, there may well be, and I expect there to be, situations where a warp drive simply cannot function. In such cases, there must be further consideration as to a balance between both attacker and defender, freighter vs pirate. Again, by looking at the issues now, we can avoid similar reactions in the future, and also make good suggestions for NQ to consider about how pvp would best work for this game. I can tell you, I've not done pvp here, I don't need to, to understand how terrible it is.

That was true for people back in November, and October, and September, each not starting in with the same situation as those who began earlier. You can cheaply make a space capable ship. In fact, you can take the basic speeder that you get for free, and within a matter of about two hours, maybe less, have ship capable of reaching any planet or moon. Will it have warp? Depends on how long you want to work for the money. A player can enter the game for the first time, run through those tutorials that work (some are not finished yet), do a bit of mining, the buy the parts for a ship that can go into space. Will it be a massive freighter? Of course not, but it's a start that is easily achievable. Or a player can enter the game, run through the tutorials, and declare it to be unfair and impossible. Your choice. I know of more than one player who started since the patch and is now running to other planets in order to buy and sell schematics for a profit. Again, the wall that is stopping you is in your mind, not in the game.

It is an anecdote. It is one result out of many thousands, currently, of possible. Gathering the results from multiple hundreds of individual cases of hauling freight from thousands of players, without cherry picking, is valid data. Within the entire context of this argument is risk vs reward. Elements of risk, including crashing with a fully loaded (or empty for that matter) freighter is a part of the risk. That same risk is not borne by a space-only pirate. Therefore, including that is not off topic, but rather an inclusion of what should be obvious. There are extremes to this measurement, and they need to be accounted for when looking at options for game mechanisms, at least to see whether or not they are game-breaking or far too rewarding. It is within these two bounds that the vast majority of player experiences should fall. My argument applies not only to the now, but also the future of the game, given that pvp is due for an overhaul, or at least an expansion, and people are advocating for something to be done in the now, such as self-destruction on the one end and prevention of players from dumping cargo on the other. This isn't even an argument over whether or not a player must warp to avoid combat, while it is a smarter move, not everyone now nor in the future will be able to make that choice. Slowboating does bear a much greater measure of risk, given that warping to a safe zone (that currently exists) around the other planets is guaranteed to work. Except, there's no avoidance mechanism on the other end and more than one ship has ended up severely damaged from a collision they could not know about or avoid in time. But that's another discussion. Given that warp engines are 100% successful, why then do pirates exist, knowing that they cannot intercept a warping ship? Because not everyone can or is able to do so, and thus leave themselves open to attack. If players ONLY warped, then we're going to get even more demands for webbers or warp disruptors by wannabe-pirates who feel that life is very unfair in that they cannot find easy victims, which leads us precisely back to this same argument. It is here that the issue of attack and defense comes into play. If resolved sooner, rather than at some distant point when things are even more set in stone, it is better for us all. With that said, I can see where you and I have overlapping areas of agreement, but then their remains this vast chasm, also. I am a firm believer in a nearly-balanced pvp system. I state nearly because I think true balance is either not achievable or ultimately far too boring to contemplate. Given this, there must always be tweaks, here and there, to fine-tune the systems which lay at the heart of combat. My primary pvp experience, in space combat, is EVE, which is probably the best iteration of a working system around, but even then it gets tweaked and adjusted and there are some problems that have cropped up over the years. Yet, I am not calling for that system to be put into place here, one reason being that the scales are different, another being the method of ship construction and design. Were I attacked and to decide to dump my cargo, it's not because I am making a dick-move, it's because I know that the loot will not only encourage the pirate to remain a pirate (and I loath pirates everywhere), but also would actively support them in maintain, refueling, and rearming their ship. Denying pirates these resources benefits all other haulers, as a result. Additionally, warping being 100% safe may well become a thing of the past, eventually, should the safe zone around planets disappear or new planets/solar systems be added that do not have them. Do we await that time to address the issue or do we discuss it now, find a workable and acceptable solution and then promote that to NQ in the form of suggestions that other players can vote on. I'd really like to see a far more robust combat system, one which requires actual skill from the trigger-pullers, but which gives the defenders something to work with to assist in survivabiilty, beyond the avoidance of combat entirely. It should be obvious that there may well be something down that road that limits the use and functioning of warp drives, such as flying through a gas cloud, and again we return to this very issue if not already addressed and resolved. Your repeated calls for doing the maths is meaningless in this case, because again, that is not at the heart of the argument. Some will find it unaffordable to them and others will find it extremely so. Great. This argument comes down to those times when combat is unavoidable, what options exist for both sides, and what mechanisms are available to the attacker and what are available to the defender. Again, again, and again, when combat cannot otherwise be avoided, regardless of the reason, the attacker has all of the mechanisms and the defender only two real options, to try to run or to die, because fighting it out is a false option for a true freighter vs true pirate/pvper encounter. Because of the speed limit, outrunning a pirate can only be done if that pilot makes a grievous error. So the only other current option is surrender or die, which amounts to the same thing due to the lack of a comms system. Even did such exist, one would have to rely on the mercy of pirates, which is laughable. Bringing us back to...this game needs defensive mechanisms that players can then elect to use for self-defense and/or preservation. A self-destruct mechanism is one of denial of resources that go to feed piracy. I am not saying that such would simply work when a button was pushed. Rather, I would like to see it where, if the pirate acts quickly enough, they can thwart the self-destruct command, either by destroying that element when in combat or by boarding in enough time to shut it off after repairing the core. There are a great many possibilities, but all are prevented if we knee-jerkingly react with "unfair to pirates."

I am entertained by what exists now, not by the promise of what might exist in the future. I am excited by that promise, but that's it. I'll be neither angry nor giddy with the future of the game, regardless of which direction it goes. If the game folds up tomorrow, I will have still received more entertainment value than I could have hoped for. If it lasts for 20 years more, with millions of happy subscribers, great, but if I find a greater source of entertainment or fulfillment elsewhere, I won't be here.

Please, tell me how many newer players can do this from the start? Just how many of those can recover the loss of their only warp capable ship? They need T3+ cargo to make it as profitable as you claim, assuming the prices of T3 ores remain constant or go higher, and not lower. You also assume they make multiple successful runs before losing their ship. Yet, this cannot be assumed as it does not fit reality. Some will be as successful, many will not. It is the nature of the game. Some will lose their ships on the very run they were counting on earning enough to buy a warp engine and the warp cells. So, they'll need at least one scanner to have a good chance at finding a hex with T3 ore in it, likely two or three for the sake of their time, but we can assume just one. They lose that ship to a pirate, before they have warp, then what? This not a presentation of valid data, it is an anecdote. Did you slam into something at the end of your warp and have to repair most of your ship before mining? Did you suffer a lag crash which led to a ship crash and again have expensive repairs to make? A best case scenario is nothing to base a sound pvp system from; ending up with offensive only elements and a cap on the maximum speed a freighter can use to generate a shorter engagement window. It would be equally unfair to limit pvp using the best case scenario for a pirate, who after just a few minutes of waiting happens to score an easy kill and millions worth of loot. Should the ammo containers then be made carry less because it is not needed? How about that awesome pirate who is very good with xs weapons, should we just go with those and get rid of the other weapon sizes as they are not needed? Such would be absurd. I am advocating a balanced system, but in the time spanning now and then, the freighters should not be forced by the game to just give up their cargo and ship when shot at. It is perfectly legitimate for them to reduce the gain their attacker stands to win and a magical "no!" button or other limitation on their doing so is fundamentally imbalanced. If you one-shot me, you deserve everything you stand to gain. If you don't, I reserve the right to thumb my nose at you as I push all of the more expensive items out the airlock, minus what will fit in my nanopack. Notice, that these same defensive mechanisms as I and others advocate for would also work for pirates, too, giving them some measure of additional survivability in that very rare situation where they are outmatched, whether by numerous defenders or other, large, pirates/pvpers. I am not whining, but you blind yourself to it. If you bothered to comprehend what I wrote, you'd see that I already accept that pvp exists and look forward to having a complete, and somewhat balanced, pvp system, which does not yet exist in this game. If you can't pull your head out, then we can never expect you to see anything but what you want to see. I have clearly stated the situation as it exists, not how I think it exists, but how it is. I have offered suggestions that would provide some measure of balance, but not at all remove pvp from the game. On the contrary, I think that by adding such mechanism, there'd be far more pvp and the experience for all involved would only improve. And no, just because you put the time in it does not guarantee a return on your investment. There's generally risk involved, and currently, aside from wasting time, there's really no risk to be had for pirates/gankers, except getting jumped by other pirates/gankers. So, stop whining about freighters who'd rather dump their cargo and/or self-destruct when faced with a combat situation they cannot possibly win or hope to survive, because the very necessary defensive measures have not been added to the game. If you cannot kill the target before they rid themselves of the loot you want, then that is because you are bad at it. You deserve nothing and should only earn what you can gain from the use of better tactics and piloting skill, not because you think that once you point your weapons at someone they should lose all rights to carry on as they are able.

And yet you are here, like a bad penny. Go play SC or SG and bid the game you love to hate farewell.

Ah, so now we get to your real argument. Thank you, but no. I am not interested in the game being leveled just in time for full release because "fair." I care nothing for how much or how little others have. I do care about the hundreds of hours, expanding to thousands of hours, put into building a rather large ground base, spanning more than one hex. Life is inherently not fair. When we are born, some have more and some have less, how they acquired or lost their wealth is immaterial to my success or failure. Anyone can choose to join the paid beta. If they delay, it's on them, not me.

No, actually, there's not, not in the case of defense, which I clearly noted. There are tactics, which avoiding combat altogether being one. There is another, less successful, tactic of speeding right at the destination and hoping a pirate isn't there or that they are badly out of position, but that is not a mechanism. A pure form of defense with every effort made towards one's survival and not spending anything (time, energy, material) to defeating the attacker. Generally, it is thought to be more effective in many circumstances where killing the opponent is impractical, if not impossible. Clearly, you did not read or comprehend my words here: I never said that defense should make one invincible and it most certainly does not in this game, primarily because there's no real defense once under attack except to rely on time as a means to gain safety. All forms of defensive mechanisms which I have advocated for in these forms (as wells as from many others), all seek to insure survival by manipulating the variables that effect time in combat. A effective damage shield or armor is a method of delaying damage (obviously) and with enough speed and a short enough distance, the defender avoids fatal damage prior to gaining safety. ECM and ECCM would do the same thing, in different ways to be sure. Increasing the current maximum speed would also shorten the time outside of safety. Yet, none of these exist, apart from honeycomb HP. And its relative effectiveness is arguable, especially as it relates to haulers. It may well be more feasible to just use other elements as ablative shields, where they provide a form of damage but are considered acceptable to lose and their loss will not negatively impact the functioning of the ship. Looking at the elements within the game, they are categorized. When examining the combat and defense elements, it's only weapons. a non-functioning repair unit, and a transponder. It should never be the case that a dedicated pvp ship is outclassed by a dedicated hauler with some weapons attached. Well, you might argue, there shouldn't be dedicated haulers. Which flies in the face of any form of logical reasoning. Of course the hauler should be dedicated to that purpose, to be the most efficient at delivering goods as quickly and least expense as possible. The argument here isn't that the freighter should win a fight against a pirate, but that since there's so few options available to the freighter (these generally being, avoid combat, hope that warp engages before it's too late, hope the pirate has a crappy pilot who turns the wrong way, die), that destruction of one's own cargo and ship should be allowed and not prohibited. If the pirate cannot kill his/her victim quickly, then that's their bust and it's not the responsibility of the freighter to just accept their fate and the loss of ship and cargo to their antagonist. I've ready more than one wannabe-Blackbeard exclaim something along the lines of, "It's not fair! I couldn't kill them before they were able to destroy their cargo! They shouldn't be allowed to DO that! I waited a long time, waiting for someone to come to me so I can take their stuff that they worked hard to accumulate! Waaaaaa! Boo Hoo! Sob Sob!" Okay, maybe they didn't say the last part aloud, but it was between the lines. Of course, I kept the list of defensive mechanisms low, but there's a plethora of counter-measures that could be considered, especially for countering specific weapon systems. For example, chaff vs missiles, ablative armor for lasers, and so on. A cogent and exciting pvp system would not support a single ship-type meta at all. Instead, it would provide the foundation for differently purposed ships, which, when working together, creates a far more threatening environment against their opponents or when used in a balanced way, would perform better than non-combat ships, but be far less effective against ships specialized in their various tasks. So, until such time, if ever, defensive systems and mechanisms are added to the game, it's not unfair for freighter captains to want to destroy their own ship and cargo in order to deny them to their attackers. The pirate may not like it, but the freighter captain isn't all that excited about being attack, either. It's best that both are equally happy and/or equally miserable, and not that one side is favored over the other. And right not, in a combat, the pirate is highly favored.

And? This is not a counter point.