Forums » Suggestions
what is that, the third time we've pulled a google definition in order to define a term?
What greenwall is trying to get across is that traders are actually safer in long distance sector.
Distance between pirate and trader 8k-12k
Distance between trader and safety 3k
Distance between pirate and trader 8k-12k
Distance between trader and safety 3k
pirates aren't always 8-12k away
So you admit that the sector would become more dangerous and support my suggestion, thanks JJ!
I have removed 4 or so posts that were not in keeping with the spirit of the Suggestions forum. That was a gentle reminder that did not seem to be heeded.
In keeping with the stated purpose of the Suggestions forum, please concentrate on discussing the merits (or lack thereof) of the suggestions.
"- Do not personally attack individuals. If you are engaging in a vigorous debate about a passionate subject, then debate the subject on its own merits, and not the other individual. Messages that contain only attacks may be deleted outright by forum administrators, and the person posting them may be muted on the thread. People who continue this behaviour, despite administrator warnings, may begin to lose access to forums for longer periods of time, until it effectively becomes permanent."
In keeping with the stated purpose of the Suggestions forum, please concentrate on discussing the merits (or lack thereof) of the suggestions.
"- Do not personally attack individuals. If you are engaging in a vigorous debate about a passionate subject, then debate the subject on its own merits, and not the other individual. Messages that contain only attacks may be deleted outright by forum administrators, and the person posting them may be muted on the thread. People who continue this behaviour, despite administrator warnings, may begin to lose access to forums for longer periods of time, until it effectively becomes permanent."
Mi5, I recommend that you carefully read my earlier post again if you had read it at all yet. In it, I detailed why having to travel a longer distance makes it a more naturally dangerous sector for traders. Your comments appear to indicate that you haven't even bothered to read it.
https://www.vendetta-online.com/x/msgboard/3/34969#405145
Your suggestion for shortening the distance wholly rests on your argument that the distance reduces interaction between players. How can there be "less" interaction between players if the longer distance allows pirates more headroom for pursuit, if the trader tries to brave through the whole 12k distance to get to the wormhole?
https://www.vendetta-online.com/x/msgboard/3/34969#405145
Your suggestion for shortening the distance wholly rests on your argument that the distance reduces interaction between players. How can there be "less" interaction between players if the longer distance allows pirates more headroom for pursuit, if the trader tries to brave through the whole 12k distance to get to the wormhole?
Since it has been established that reducing the travel distance actually makes the sector more dangerous, Rin's plea for more variety is the best remaining argument to retain the long travel distance, but I still don't think it's reason enough to keep it. Variety isn't really a good excuse for hindering player interaction.
With a longer travel distance, your odds of spotting a blockade, turning around, and escaping with your life increase. However, your odds of successfully slipping through the blockade to continue along your original course decrease, because the blockading party has more time to intercept you. Therefor, whether this makes the sector more or less dangerous is entirely dependent on what your goal is -- the sector is less dangerous if you only want to visit it and leave with your life, but the sector is more dangerous if your goal is to navigate through it to the other side of the wormhole.
Also, remember that the ultimate goal of a blockade is not to rack up kills. It is to block a route. A route is successfully blocked whether you die or turn around. Even if you can take a different, longer route to reach your destination, that doesn't mean the blockade didn't accomplish anything. It delayed you. In a military context, that means you were unable to aid your allies during a conflict. In an economic context, it means your rivals were busy exploiting an opportunity and saturated the market before you arrived. Or, rather than delaying you from reaching your destination, the blockade may have been intended to funnel you through the alternate route for some reason.
Also, remember that the ultimate goal of a blockade is not to rack up kills. It is to block a route. A route is successfully blocked whether you die or turn around. Even if you can take a different, longer route to reach your destination, that doesn't mean the blockade didn't accomplish anything. It delayed you. In a military context, that means you were unable to aid your allies during a conflict. In an economic context, it means your rivals were busy exploiting an opportunity and saturated the market before you arrived. Or, rather than delaying you from reaching your destination, the blockade may have been intended to funnel you through the alternate route for some reason.
However, your odds of successfully slipping through the blockade to continue along your original course decrease, because the blockading party has more time to intercept you.
Any trader worth his salt is not going to risk losing their cargo by making a run at a blockaded wormhole.
Anyone who chooses to fly the entire 12k towards the WH in a trading vessel and doesn't change course despite the blatant early indications of hostile ships on an intercept course is not at an elevated risk of danger by virtue of the travel distance, but rather from their ignorance of basic tactical strategy, which applies in any sector, regardless of travel distance.
Also, remember that the ultimate goal of a blockade is not to rack up kills.
False. The ultimate goal of any and every player instigated blockade that I have witnessed in this game, for as long as I have played (10 years), was for the sole purpose of racking up kills. Practice trumps theory. And those blockading are bound to rack up more kills and have more fun doing it if their inter-odia originating targets can get to them more quickly via a reduced travel distance in b13.
Any trader worth his salt is not going to risk losing their cargo by making a run at a blockaded wormhole.
Anyone who chooses to fly the entire 12k towards the WH in a trading vessel and doesn't change course despite the blatant early indications of hostile ships on an intercept course is not at an elevated risk of danger by virtue of the travel distance, but rather from their ignorance of basic tactical strategy, which applies in any sector, regardless of travel distance.
Also, remember that the ultimate goal of a blockade is not to rack up kills.
False. The ultimate goal of any and every player instigated blockade that I have witnessed in this game, for as long as I have played (10 years), was for the sole purpose of racking up kills. Practice trumps theory. And those blockading are bound to rack up more kills and have more fun doing it if their inter-odia originating targets can get to them more quickly via a reduced travel distance in b13.
-1 to rampant candyassery
If your goal is to kill a bunch of people, there is no need to change Odia. Just run your "blockade" on the Sedina side of the wormhole. Then you can sit right on the wormhole and have your targets pop in at a convenient distance.