Penwith

Yes, you declare the lot of a pirate being essentially a not of time spent towards little or no gain. My response speaks to that being due to the numbers of players in a paid beta, instead of those that would be expected in a full release. If a player wants to be a pirate in a game where relatively few people venture off into space in the time they (the pirate) is online, that is their choice. Not one that I'd make, but certainly one they can make. The differences matter, in this case especially, because the loss of a space ship in EVE occurs in the realm of where the player exists within that game. There isn't, or at least wasn't, a planet based arena where the player could build his/her base (although planet mining and its infrastructure did exist) and spend the entirety of their play time on the surface. In DU, the basic ships are not spaceships, not without significant overhaul and at least a basic knowledge of how to fix them to be so. Hence, the majority of time that a new player will spend their time, until and unless they have help or discover it on their own, will be on the surface of Sanctuary and then Alioth, having never ventured into space on their own, except by shuttle (which is not truly an experience in space travel, as we know). So, while acquiring a new space ship in EVE may take roughly an hour of mining, and the same may well be true in DU, the sphere in which players experience both games is not the same. In EVE, the player resides on a space ship, and in DU they do not, except when traveling. Were industrial elements allowed to operate on dynamic cores, this would be slightly different, but as they are not, players must start on the surface of a planet and then proceed into space. These differences matter, and while you and I may be more on the same level of understanding, those reading these posts down the road may not be.

And before you quote me here, let's just clarify a few things. I am stating that we are making an assumption as to the speed of light travel, for the sake of the game and ease of discussion. I did not declare that it was possible in the real world, instead my comments are limited to the game and should be taken by the reader as so meaning. People tend to like their numbers rounded off, especially within a discussion, unless exactness is absolutely required. This is why we tend to say "guess a number between 1 and 100" or "between 1 and 20" and not use 99 or 19 respectively, although some aberrant individual might. Thus, I start with the theorized cosmic speed limit, then shift to set the boundaries for discussion within context of the game. Notice that reality bends to the game, in this instance. If anything, I could have written "towards" instead of "to", but my use of the former revolves around relative location or an individual, and so "to" was a better word choice for me.

And, as I stated, if they are overhauling or changing PVP in significant ways in the upcoming year, it is a good as time as any to make suggestions towards that end now, instead of remaining quiet. I agree that combat is not the focus, but you must also agreed that they have said they are adding more in the form of territory combat and PVP, so my suggestion on this matter is not out of place.

So that is more a reflection on the current state of the game as far as the player base and their getting into space than the tactic of tossing cargo overboard and junking one's ship. If a pirate wants to sit in space, fine. But said pirate could go mine or do something else with that time, until sitting in space becomes more lucrative due to more people being in space more frequently. I know of several orgs whose members rarely ever leave Alioth. Yes, they are small, but I do not claim to know or speak for everyone. They COULD leave, but they currently do not feel the need to nor are they willing to risk what they have. I disagree with your disagreement, and so there we are. This game is much more planetbound, given that EVE is certainly not. Not unless they drastically changed that game in the few years since I last played. Yet, EVE can get away from it, because there is nearly always someplace else one can run to, whereas DU has a very limited sphere in which a player can go, and actually do something productive. Thus, the player who went well over 500cu out and tried to play, decided it was a mistake, at least according to his reddit post. If piracy is not, as yet, all that lucrative, then perhaps would-be pirates could choose to do something else that is, until the numbers of players make it more so.

I replied to you in the same tone with which you responded to me. I am not offended, merely giving like for like. As I never argued that ships should or would reach the speed of light, you stating that I need to do more research because Einstein theorized they cannot do so is a strawman. I didn't make that argument, but here you go countering it as though I did. That is not an honest objection. You can keep accelerating TO that point, but I did not say you would reach it. Theoretically, you could reach a speed of .99c, but never hit light speed, but that would take technological leaps that we currently cannot match, given the need for a propulsion system that would give far greater thrust to mass than we have. I use language more precisely than you do, I suppose. That is not a dig, it is merely a difference of how we express ourselves. And, we are discussing Einstein's view of cosmic travel, that is not to say he is 100% correct, for there is far more out there in the cosmos than we currently comprehend or can even hope to understand within numberless lifetimes. I would not declare anything to be impossible forever, only for the now. This is one reason why people theorize that warp travel or hyperspace travel may be a thing in the far future, although currently impossible. Your disparagement of my scientific knowledge is solely based on your misapprehension of my post, not based on any factual representation made by myself. It does constitute a personal attack, but again I am not offended as I choose to not give that power over myself to anyone. Beyond that, you continue to beat at the strawman you created in order to counter my suggestion, that of increasing the current maximum speed limit for space travel to something much higher. Instead of disparaging my knowledge or as you contend, my lack of it, perhaps explain why you think the current speed limit is best for the game? Do you believe that as solar systems are added, the speed limit should remain as is or are you willing to accept that it could use an increase? If the latter, how much of an increase do you think is warranted in this hypothetical?

Sigh. Did I say that ships should reach light speed? No. I mentioned the cosmic speed limit, that being light speed, given that it is the accepted speed which scientists theorize nothing can exceed. Thus, I argued that .3c or perhaps .5c would be reasonable limits for ships in this game. One can conceive that in another 1000 years or so, that science might allow for ships to survive impacts with space debris at such speeds, something I mentioned in my post. Also, given that this is a sci-fi game, where interstellar travel is expected to be included, one can and SHOULD consider that science can, in the span of technological development between 2020 anno domini and 3000 or 3900 anno domini, that mechanisms or devices would be developed to allow humans to survive a bit longer under high-g circumstances. Notice I did not suggest 100g or 400g, but a rather a much more reasonable number, at 10g. Although, I would not be against 20g or perhaps a little more, for the sake of game vs reality. If radar ranges were extended, the acceleration rates could remain as they are, given that groups of pirates operating together would be far more efficient and could already have members flying high velocity orbits around a roughly central point of a travel route, your objection in the fourth paragraph of your response is negated. Yes, missiles are currently the shortest range weapons, which is beyond dumb for a variety of reasons, and which is why longer-ranged missiles really would not be out of place in this game. The planets are large enough that camping the entire sphere of it at the limit of the safe zone would require up to several hundred players to be in intercept position at all times. If an ORG has that many active members on at once, then they deserve to own the planet. Good on them for being so well organized and possessing such numbers of dedicated members. There are other planets, btw. And as this game expands, there are supposed to be a greater number of solar systems than simply one or two. Exploration has been mentioned more than once and there's no room for such activities if the number of solar systems available to players is less than a handful. So, while your knee-jerk reaction prevents you from agreeing with my suggestion, perhaps giving it a bit more thought would be in order? Consider that if an org were as well off as you suggest as to be able to camp the outer limits of its safe zone, do you not think other players would come up with a solution? Space is vast. It should be difficult to pick up a ship that is flying outside a well-used travel lane. But, really, your argument should be that you like the current speed limit of 29,999kph, as artificial a limitation as it is. So, why are you happy to keep the status quo?

Currently. And it is a trash set of mechanics at this time. It made a sort of sense in EVE, given that the ships had large numbers of crew relative to class, represented in the person of the player, whereas here, the crews are players on the ship. The scales are different, although the current output is similar. They have already said there will be significant work on pvp throughout the upcoming year. Best to bring up suggestions and discussion concerning concerns/issues regarding the current iteration of pvp now, instead of waiting until it is already set in stone and immovable. The granularity of this game is readily evident in the method of construction. While elements do not fall under this, their placement and composition within the construct certainly does. There are no specific hardpoints that types of weapons must be fitted into, not is are there specific restrictions as to size of engine, fuel tanks, and the like. As long as everything fits within the build area for the core size and the elements do not overlap each other's space, the player can build it as he or she sees fit...regardless of what logic would require. Granularity. Furthermore, as elements are ALL already classified and and categorized (Transportation Elements - Engines - Space Engines - Large Space Engines - Military Space Engine L) it is not inconceivable that the foundation for a more granular approach to ship combat damage allocation already exists, even if not originally intended to be so. Neither is it impossible nor improbable that instead of a single button that a gunner clicks on to shoot the weapon at his/her station (seat), that other buttons could be placed there named "Engines" "Command" (meaning cockpit, command seat, etc), "Weapons", "Cargo", and that since each of the elements already falls under one and only one of these categories, that a combat algorithm could include a modification to the hit chance to damage that specific class of element and the divide the damage amongst the elements of that class on the target ship. Such differentiation in targeting should require a reduction in hit chance, for sake of balance, as well as a chance to apply damage to ships is is already done (random element/honeycomb being struck), instead of the specified targeted system. The implications of this type of mechanic for ship to ship combat should be clear, and the development of tactics and the nuances of it would certainly be an area that players would dive into, especially when/if defensive systems come into being, like positional armor, shields, ECM, and the like. Additionally, should such at time arrive that actual XS fighters use a targeting reticle, they would be able to aim at specific points on a target ship (limited by the player's skill in aiming), would it not be both strange and silly if the damage from their shots be randomly applied to the target? Lastly, this would open up the array of weapon types to individual uses that would give far more meaning to weapon selection beyond whatever the current meta dictates. For example missiles could be limited to random application of damage, rail-guns have a lesser chance of hitting the specific target, but do lots of damage, and lasers having the greatest chance of hitting the targeted system, but doing less damage. One can see that pirates will be more likely, as a group, to want to save the cargo, but kill the engines and pilot, so missiles and perhaps rail guns would be less utilized, but defenders would be all too happy to use missiles as they are not concerned with salvaging the cargo hold of a pirate, but rather getting rid of the threat as quickly as possible. Now, given the current state of affairs and a system based more along the lines of what I am suggesting, which would you honestly prefer to play with, as a pirate or hauler? Right now, ship to ship combat require ZERO skill from gunners, and a measure of skill from the ships pilots, unless you think that clicking the mouse button when the hit chance bar is higher is a "skill" to be commended and applauded.

The solution is simple. After 2 hours of not moving (within the confines of the hex the market resides) the construct is compacted and can be retrieved from the market container after 24 hours. All cargo is removed from the construct and also placed in the market container. The compacted ship can only be unpacked in the same hex as the market container from which it was obtained. Thus, no freebie and easy movement across the face of a planet with a compacted L core and 300KT of goods. No, the cargo is sitting in the player's market container waiting for shipment. That takes care of one problem, the ships perma-parked on, around, and under current market platforms. Now, we need to handle the mess of stacked containers surrounding markets in adjacent hexes. There needs to be a maximum height for deployment of cores, and subsequent movement of said cores' constructs" to 200m, in the adjacent hexes surrounding a market. We already have a limitation of placing cores no more than 100m above the ground, but a wall of containers on the edge of the platform is becoming a problem at more than one market.

Log in every 23 hours, being sure to log out in the meantime.

an easier way to handle the problem your "solution" attempts to resolve is simply restricting non-friendly placement of space cores within a spherical distance of one already placed. So, only friendly cores (from same or associated orgs) could be placed in proximity.

Sell to bots, no, but to have unique or nearly so decorative items from alien civilizations that could only be found through discovery (and then player originated transactions to other players) would be something to look forward to. Some of the relics could have functionality, perhaps teleporting to another relic of the same type, in the same construct. There's quite a lot underneath this, beyond crass usage as a revenue source from bots.

And I simply disagree. PVP is already planned to undergo some hefty changes and will likely go through even further refinement before full release. This game is far more granular than the other (popular) space game and a similarly granular combat system makes far more sense.

Snaring isn't necessary at all, if the combat mechanics allowed players to target ship systems as a group, over blanket shooting at a target. Were players able to specifically target "Engines" and then have a greater chance of hitting the engines (at the same time as missing other parts of the ship), then said target could be slowed to the point where a boarding could occur. One could argue that the damage to engines caused side effects forcing the engines to slow the ship's velocity..blah...blah. This would also allow for cargo holds to receive much less damage, unless targeted, for pirates to then plunder.

As I've posted bits of this elsewhere, I thought I should provide an explication of my idea here. Currently, max speed is too quickly and easily achieved, as well is too easily assumed by a potential pvp opponent. Rationally, there's no reason for the speed to be at the relatively low velocity, beyond that it is such because the devs deemed it to be so. In space, you can keep accelerating to the cosmic speed limit of 300,000kps (yes, kilometers per second), which is the speed light, as per Einstein's theory and argument. So, let us, for the sake of ease, assume this to be the absolute speed at which a non-light particle can travel. For game purposes, we can certainly fudge the numbers, especially when one considers the damage that running into a 1mm diameter rock would cause when struck by a ship at the speed of light (c). Think big flash of light and little bitty pieces, and you'd not be too far off the mark. So, my suggestion is bumping up that speed limit to at least .3c, if not .5c, but limiting acceleration (in g) and linking that to core size. While the thrust to mass ration would REALLY be the limiting factor in this case, it would be far easier to just place that limitation to core size, where everyone can still build their ship in any way they wish, but also understand the maximum rate of acceleration, regardless of at what mass their ship ultimately arrives. Real world acceleration would be right around 9g, although very brief exposure to much higher g-forces can be survived. Therefore an example might be something like this: XS: 10g S: 6g M: 3g L (when it happens): 1g As one can guess, a XS ship will achieve a given speed at a much faster rate than any of the other sized core ships, an advantage to be sure. However, this is offset but a number of factors, not the least being volume and mass differentials. Since NQ has repeatedly said something along the lines of wanting players to be awed by the size and scope of the game (and space), a much higher maximum speed, achieved over a varying length of time, allows the solar system(s) to be much larger in size, opening up that space to something less crowded (looking at those players who like to park in the middle of a travel lane). This, in turn, opens up warp travel to have greater meaning and cost, by virtue of allowing for it to be limited to only travel between solar systems or to maybe just changed it to be used further outside a stellar body's gravity well. So, the larger the planet and its gravity, the further out one must be to enter or leave warp (giving pirates some opportunities they currently lack), with larger planets needing a much greater distance than the smaller moons, as this activation range should be outside a planet's safe zone. This would also open up opportunities for ship weaponry, such as long and even longer ranged missiles, fed from dedicated (and linked) missile magazines, point-defense systems (lasers or kinetic), meaningful radar improvements such as range and detection abilities. It would also add utility to player-created space stations as destinations for more than this friends and org-mates, but real market hubs and places to dock and log out. Sure, one can say, and some already have, that NQ has bigger fish to fry, which is true. However, any change of this nature would be better sooner, rather than later and, in my view, make for a much better game in terms of player options with regard to ship design, base location, and expansion into new solar systems. Yes, there would certainly be changes to how players approach pvp, but that is already in the cards.

Uh, included yes, but hardly the focus of space. Notice, "Don't want PVP? Stick to the Safe zones and you'll be fine." Now, one can argue where and how large the safe zones should be, but it cannot be argued that NQ wants the space within a safe zone focused on pvp. That being said, your point likely should read something along the lines, that outside the safe zone, you'll need to be wary of pirates and other pvpers. So, more truthfully, the risk of pvp is a present danger, but not the focus of space travel outside the zone. If it were the focus, then it would also be unavoidable or nearly so. A warp bubble is far off in the distance, if ever, in this game's life. For one thing, until there is a sufficient and significant buff to a ships passive pvp defense (ECM, counter-missiles, chances to max speed and accel, etc), the primacy of the attack already exists. A pirate does not need to prevent someone from warping, the cost of warping already prevents many/most players from warping. Declaring that the hauler should have gotten themselves an escort is ludicrous, given that a pirate with a warp disruption device would be more than able to take on a hauler, while solo. If what is good for the goose is also good for the gander, then any warp disruption device should prevent any other weapon from being on the ship, thus requiring at least a dedicated ship to carry it. A silly claim to make; not at all an argument. An outnumbered hauler should be at a disadvantage. With numbers being equal, as the game currently exists, the advantage is too far on the side of the attacker, even where the numbers involved are 1v1. Where the defenders currently escape is more due to error on the part of the attacker than some brilliant defense (running away) on the part of the defender. Until a parity or near-parity between the two exists, a warp disruption device should be a non-starter. I am waiting for someone to suggest cloaking devices for xs cores only... Let EVE be what it is. Give DU a chance to become something more, if it will.

aka ECM (Electronic Countermeasures). With the reply being ECCM (Electronic Counter-Countermeasures). Which, in the prior, should delay (but for the purposes of a game not prevent) lock-on and/or reduce the range at which a lock-on can be achieved by an opponent. In the latter, this would reduce the effectiveness of the ECM. Both would/should appear as electronic devices, be more effective as their tier increases, and improve in effectiveness through leveling an appropriate talent.

Your point about speed only really matters when you are dealing with destinations, not combat, but even then a trip to the outer planets would be far better to be taken at 50,000 or 100,000 KPH than the current max. Again, though, this would require some shifting of design parameters, in that such speeds need or should rely upon the acceleration in G associated with a max acceleration per core size. Larger ships will generally have slower accel rates than smaller ships, given the differential in mass, although mass would be the actual determining factor. However, I think to keep it simple is best, by limiting accel by core size. It would, perhaps, be best to make such a change earlier rather than later, in the development of this game, should the designers come to agree with the idea. Beyond point to point travel, when looking at a hauler attempting to avoid pirates in a known lane of travel, the victim, er player, is currently held to the same max velocity as the attacker, who is already likely on or at least within radar detection range, of the lane. Once detected, the pirate only need to approximate the hauler's bearing, and then burn fuel to achieve near parity with the hauler, whose velocity can be assumed to be 29,999, by the pirate. If max speed we say, 100,000KPH, there's far more leeway in this assumption, if the pirate guesses incorrectly, the hauler has more time, probably much more time, to make a course change or to adjust speed. Right now, with the max speed being so relatively low, and the acceleration to that speed being fairly quick, it takes an on the ball hauler player and a inattentive pirate to achieve the same result, a divergence in engagement probability due to relative speeds. Why this ultimately matters is, 1) a hauler, with very likely a lower rate of accel, could actually burn away from the destination, reach a certain distance and flip ship, then burn towards the destination, in order to attain a much higher closing velocity. Now, the pirate(s) would need to either be spread out along the route of travel, (which is what I would do), in order to achieve a few hits with each, hoping for a lucky hit to cripple the target's engines, and then chase it to match speeds and board, or hit it all at once in that brief window of opportunity, hoping to achieve the same result. Yet, the qualifier here is that the hauler may be going 75,000kph, not 100,000, and with a slower accel rate than the pirates (assuming their cores are smaller, specifically because of the accel advantage), turning to a new heading may be a worse choice than blazing ahead. While my poor explanation does not include mention of all the nuances that this type of combat contains, upon reading it one may see that as vast as space truly is, and that this game attempts to show us, combat in space is currently a knife fight between opponents, usually with them both running at the same speed, but the defender having no real option but to reduce the loot gain by the pirate. Such a change would also allow for much larger solar systems, with greater distances separating the planets/moons, given that they can still be reached fairly quickly by a fast ship, albeit at a much greater velocity than is presently attainable. If a change to this manner of travel were to happen, then I'd be happy to see change to warp travel as well, either limiting its use to travel between solar systems or limiting its use to certain minimum distances outside the gravity wells of stellar bodies. This last would be of benefit to pirates, btw.

If you are referring to me, with this, then you've taken my words to mean the opposite of what they do mean. I am against limiting the space speed to 29,999kph, and would like it to be extended to at least .5c (half the speed of light), because one can at least argue that C-fractional is possible with enough scientific advancement that would prevent the catastrophic destruction of a ship merely because it ran into a single grain of space dust. I'm much more in agreement with space combat ala David Weber's Honor Harrington series, with c-fractional missiles carrying bomb-pumped laser emitters as warheads, but I will take that as much that as DU is willing to deliver. Currently, DU's model is modern air combat in space, and that puts me off it.

Funny, enough people currently make quite a lot in salvage of ships they have captured, so piracy is currently not even close to unviable. Where the question of viability is answered is in the tactics used by the pirates, not by the victim. This is why, from all the evidence I have seen via video, forums, and chat discussions, groups of pirates are far more successful than those who go it alone. With enough firepower brought to bear on a target, in a relatively short period of time, the victim simply runs out of time in the decision loop of "can I make it?" or "screw it all, I've lost everything!" and then begins the process of tossing overboard all of their valuables. And this depends on whether their ship design allows them access to their containers while in flight. Smarter ship designs do, the economical ones quite often won't. Simply viewing the different ships venturing off into space shows us that. This latter fact will change as ship building theory and practice evolves. Also, early on in EVE is not same as here. Losing the vast majority of your major investment to pirates is not an "early on" loss. I lost numerous ships in EVE, some to pirates, most to battles, some to NPCs when I was afk mining, but I always had ready back-ups that I could jump into and go back to what I was doing. In DU, it is quite different, in that few can lose an M core hauler to pirates and then turn around and get into another, similar, ship, load it up with cargo and head back out. So, it is more of an apples to oranges comparison than not. Also, in EVE all the combat advantages do not fall on the side of the pirates, like they do currently in DU. For pirates to succeed in this game, there must be a well-grounded mining/industry and space hauling system, where the risk to reward ration is in their apparent favor, but where pirates can infrequently score big payoffs from rich victims. In a situation where the sharks are bigger, faster, and more numerous than the little fish, the risk to reward ratio is so low that haulers will necessarily do everything they can to avoid giving anything to pirates, whether by tossing cargo/destroying ship elements, warping only, or simply not carrying any cargo between worlds outside the safe zone. Of course, there are and will be exceptions, especially when it comes to better organized or larger organizations that can either pay for escorts or provide their own. Yet, the smaller orgs and solo players, will look at the risk and very likely choose from their very poor list of options. I think the long-term viability in piracy requires a much more balanced PVP system (as we can all likely agree), but also an understanding among players who like to steal and destroy the hard work and time investment of others, that if a pirate expects to capture the majority of his victims, soon he will no longer have anyone to BE his victim. Expecting or demanding otherwise is counter to the long-term interests of pirates, regardless of the short-term gain. And if the short-term is your current pirate meta, then I doubt those players will stick around, after "ruining it" for many others. So, in fact, they would not be pirates at all, but trolls...

DU needs to get rid of the 29,999 max speed, end of story. Right now, there is a primacy of attack, when it comes to pvp between pirates and non-pvpers. A ship already traveling at max speed has an advantage, and with a decent pilot, he/she can maintain lock on their target until it is crippled or destroyed. The defending hauler or non-pvp optimized ship has far less in the way of actual active or passive defense than this game needs, and until such is added, the defenders' ability to delete elements and trash cargo is their only real option, once they realize they cannot escape their fate. The primary defense against piracy is eliminating or reducing the window of engagement, when one cannot simply avoid the pirates. While some cavalierly state that haulers can just approach their destination from a less-used angle, the obvious and easy counter is for pirates to deploy scouts along the previously lesser used approaches. The haulers will still suffer the same fate as they simply cannot generally carry enough fuel to try many different approaches on a single trip. Since there is a max speed, the usual means of reducing the engagement window is out of the question, and that is to be too fast for the pirate to effectively engage or pursue. If the pirates have friends orbiting the approach vector, at max speed, there's nothing the target can do beyond attempt to veer off (which causes its own set of problems, potentially) or pray they can survive the soon-to-be-incoming fire. As a juicy enough target will be pursued, veering off is a delaying tactic at worst and a gamble at best; gambling the pirates will run out of fuel or low enough on fuel that they cannot return to a refueling point or base and so must break off. As pirates often work in groups, veering off may just simply put an as yet unseen pirate in the target's path. Others argue the hauler should just put weapons on the ship and shoot back. This a silly argument. Haulers, by the nature of ship building, need to prioritize cargo, lift/engines, and fuel over everything else, to be efficient. Where one decides to skimp on cargo or fuel, weapons and armor can be added, but this adds further risks to the hauler in the need for additional trips back and forth or for having less fuel to use to avoid pirates by approaching via lesser used paths. Pirates tend to focus their ships on one, perhaps two, things, non-of which hinder their ability to choose a victim and go after it. Where I would like to see the max speed eliminated, I do believe that a max acceleration rate should be applied, per core size, with the larger core possessing a lower rate of acceleration and the xs cores having the highest. This would mean that pirates could just park in space, waiting for a particularly juicy target, and then burn after it when they opt to do so. Yes, they can do this now, with the max speed limitation, but were that removed, it would be a much more viable and consistent tactic. Also, detection of ships should depend partly upon their speed, with unmoving ships being not much more than a hole in space, with fast ships creating a large and long exhaust trail, bright light at the tail of the engines, etc. Meaning, that pirates, under my scenario, could just sit silently, if an escorted hauler passes through their area, being virtually undetectable by the hauler's defenders...the pirate(s) await less dangerous pickings to show. There's far more to it than what I have written here, including actual long-range, self-guiding missiles and not rocket pods, ECM, ECCM, ablative/refractive armor, kinetic armor, reactive armor, shields, etc., but at the very start, DU could be a much better game for it by eliminating the max space speed and instead going with a limitation to absolute acceleration. Humans cannot, as a species survive much more than 9gs of acceleration before bodies cannot take it and we pass out, and this for only brief moments as we cannot endure 5gs for more than two minutes. Now, as this is the far future, we can make allowances for science and evolution, so perhaps a limitation of 15g or 20g, perhaps more, but there's no rational reason why one could not survive traveling 100,000kmh in space, aside from bumping space rocks and debris (which this game mostly ignores) becoming catastrophic collisions at that speed. So, pirates complaining about their victims dumping cargoes and trashing their ship elements is...poetic justice.