Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 [16] 17 18 19 20 .. 22 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 3 post(s) |
Riot Girl
You'll Cowards Don't Even Smoke Crack
2609
|
Posted - 2014.01.28 01:07:00 -
[451] - Quote
Abdul 'aleem wrote:Again: a suspect flag for trespassing doesn't make it any easier or harder for grifers to get into a mission pocket and start fighting if that is what they choose to do. Yes it does.
Quote:The claim that this suggestion will automatically increase griefer activity in every existing mission pocket has not been proven in any way, and cannot because it is 100% dependent on player choice not suspect status. So when will the 'vigilantes' come to your aid? When you call for help or whenever they feel like it (i.e probing down the suspect as soon as they go yellow blinky in local)?
Oh god. |
Taranogas 3rd
State War Academy Caldari State
2
|
Posted - 2014.01.28 01:10:00 -
[452] - Quote
if a GM hadn't reverted that Item then I would disagree with you Abdul and just deal with it, but since that's not the case then they acknowledge that it's something wrong, on the other hand there is new mobile item: mobile scan inhibitor coming in Rubicon 1.1 tomorrow's patch, this should prove useful in particular for these kind of missions. |
Abdul 'aleem
Sumiko Yoshida Corporation
146
|
Posted - 2014.01.28 01:13:00 -
[453] - Quote
Taranogas 3rd wrote:if a GM hadn't reverted that Item then I would disagree with you Abdul and just deal with it, but since that's not the case then they acknowledge that it's something wrong, on the other hand there is new mobile item: mobile scan inhibitor coming in Rubicon 1.1 tomorrow's patch, this should prove useful in particular for these kind of missions.
Thanks for supporting the opinion that a problem exists.
I will def check that out. |
Abdul 'aleem
Sumiko Yoshida Corporation
146
|
Posted - 2014.01.28 01:15:00 -
[454] - Quote
Riot Girl wrote:Abdul 'aleem wrote:
The claim that this suggestion will automatically increase griefer activity in every existing mission pocket has not been proven in any way, and cannot because it is 100% dependent on player choice not suspect status.
So when will the 'vigilantes' come to your aid? When you call for help or whenever they feel like it (i.e probing down the suspect as soon as they go yellow blinky in local)?
If you see a problem, spell it out preferably with facts to support it. |
Riot Girl
You'll Cowards Don't Even Smoke Crack
2609
|
Posted - 2014.01.28 01:18:00 -
[455] - Quote
The problem is, some mission runners don't want vigilantes turning up in their missions and starting fights every time someone warps in. The vigilantes aren't helping the mission runners, they're just using their mission site as a place to get a fight. They don't care about the mission runner, they're as much a griefer as the invader is.
And spelling out problems is all I've been doing so far. Oh god. |
Abdul 'aleem
Sumiko Yoshida Corporation
146
|
Posted - 2014.01.28 01:27:00 -
[456] - Quote
Riot Girl wrote:The problem is, some mission runners don't want vigilantes turning up in their missions and starting fights every time someone warps in. The vigilantes aren't helping the mission runners, they're just using their mission site as a place to get a fight. They don't care about the mission runner, they're as much a griefer as the invader is.
And spelling out problems is all I've been doing so far.
I acknowledge that those are your opinions and only your opinions with no factual support.
Did you read my response in post #434? |
Riot Girl
You'll Cowards Don't Even Smoke Crack
2609
|
Posted - 2014.01.28 01:36:00 -
[457] - Quote
Yes, it was garbage. Oh god. |
Abdul 'aleem
Sumiko Yoshida Corporation
146
|
Posted - 2014.01.28 01:38:00 -
[458] - Quote
Riot Girl wrote:Yes, it was garbage.
I think we understand your opinons.
Others may not agree, which means you may be wrong.
Even others may agree, which doesn't mean your right.
But, if you give facts to support your opinions, we can discuss.
Otherwise it looks like you are thread crapping. |
Riot Girl
You'll Cowards Don't Even Smoke Crack
2609
|
Posted - 2014.01.28 01:40:00 -
[459] - Quote
Abdul 'aleem wrote:Riot Girl wrote:Yes, it was garbage. I think we understand your opinons. Others may not agree, which means you may be wrong.
Others will agree that you still haven't addressed their concerns. Garbage.
Oh god. |
Abdul 'aleem
Sumiko Yoshida Corporation
146
|
Posted - 2014.01.28 01:41:00 -
[460] - Quote
Riot Girl wrote:Abdul 'aleem wrote:Riot Girl wrote:Yes, it was garbage. I think we understand your opinons. Others may not agree, which means you may be wrong. Others will agree that you still haven't addressed their concerns. Garbage.
You're not contributing to the conversation here.
Making hollow accusations with no support makes you look like you are trolling or thread crapping.
If you have a specific non-opinionated concern based on facts, just post it and the support so we can discuss. |
|
Riot Girl
You'll Cowards Don't Even Smoke Crack
2609
|
Posted - 2014.01.28 01:50:00 -
[461] - Quote
Myself and many others have posted the concern we wish you to address. For some reason you feel we need proof of assurance that it is going to happen before you will accept it as a valid concern. So basically you're suggesting CCP implement your idea without testing or exploring undesirable secondary effects. Don't you think that's a little selfish and irresponsible? Oh god. |
Abdul 'aleem
Sumiko Yoshida Corporation
146
|
Posted - 2014.01.28 02:00:00 -
[462] - Quote
Riot Girl wrote:Myself and many others have posted the concern we wish you to address. For some reason you feel we need proof of assurance that it is going to happen before you will accept it as a valid concern. So basically you're suggesting CCP implement your idea without testing or exploring undesirable secondary effects. Don't you think that's a little selfish and irresponsible?
This one:
Abdul 'aleem wrote:Riot Girl wrote:The problem is, some mission runners don't want vigilantes turning up in their missions and starting fights every time someone warps in. The vigilantes aren't helping the mission runners, they're just using their mission site as a place to get a fight. They don't care about the mission runner, they're as much a griefer as the invader is.
And spelling out problems is all I've been doing so far. I acknowledge that those are your opinions and only your opinions with no factual support. Did you read my response in post #434?
that you responded by saying:
Riot Girl wrote:Yes, it was garbage. |
Abdul 'aleem
Sumiko Yoshida Corporation
146
|
Posted - 2014.01.28 02:03:00 -
[463] - Quote
I think that you just need to accept that many people don't agree with your opinions and move on. |
Estella Osoka
Deep Void Merc Syndicate Sicarius Draconis
290
|
Posted - 2014.01.28 02:09:00 -
[464] - Quote
Riot Girl wrote:Myself and many others have posted the concern we wish you to address. For some reason you feel we need proof of assurance that it is going to happen before you will accept it as a valid concern. So basically you're suggesting CCP implement your idea without testing or exploring undesirable secondary effects. Don't you think that's a little selfish and irresponsible?
Of course he does. He doesn't care what such a change would bring. Griefers running around in people's missions. Shooting their rats, stealing their loot, salvaging their wrecks. Just as they can now, mind you. All the time they are in there just pissing you off and waiting for you to take a shot so they can kill your mission boat.
All this adds is the option to shoot the griefer first, not stop the activity.
Hisec PVPers will love this because a lot of them have been wanting PVP arenas for years. Especially the WoW fanboys. |
Abdul 'aleem
Sumiko Yoshida Corporation
146
|
Posted - 2014.01.28 02:23:00 -
[465] - Quote
Estella Osoka wrote:Riot Girl wrote:Myself and many others have posted the concern we wish you to address. For some reason you feel we need proof of assurance that it is going to happen before you will accept it as a valid concern. So basically you're suggesting CCP implement your idea without testing or exploring undesirable secondary effects. Don't you think that's a little selfish and irresponsible? Of course he does. He doesn't care what such a change would bring. Griefers running around in people's missions. Shooting their rats, stealing their loot, salvaging their wrecks. Just as they can now, mind you. All the time they are in there just pissing you off and waiting for you to take a shot so they can kill your mission boat. All this adds is the option to shoot the griefer first, not stop the activity. Hisec PVPers will love this because a lot of them have been wanting PVP arenas for years. Especially the WoW fanboys.
If that is your understanding of what is being proposed, you clearly do not understand the suggestion.
Post #434 clearly addresses the false assumptions regarding PvP and this suggestion.
|
Riot Girl
You'll Cowards Don't Even Smoke Crack
2609
|
Posted - 2014.01.28 02:28:00 -
[466] - Quote
It doesn't address the concern. It assumes the vigilantes are going to ask for permission before warping in (because they're polite and chivalrous white knights), when they won't. They'll just warp in when they feel like it and take the suspect flag because your fleet invite mechanics are a pointless waste of time. Oh god. |
Abdul 'aleem
Sumiko Yoshida Corporation
146
|
Posted - 2014.01.28 02:34:00 -
[467] - Quote
Riot Girl wrote:It doesn't address the concern. It assumes the vigilantes are going to ask for permission before warping in (because they're polite and chivalrous white knights), when they won't. They'll just warp in when they feel like it and take the suspect flag because your fleet invite mechanics are a pointless waste of time.
I understand your opinions and we can agree to disagree.
Your opinions don't seem to be based in many facts, if any.
If you have any basis for your assumptions/opinions post them and we can discuss.
Otherwise you will just have to accept that there are many people who disagree with you and they have posted the facts that they base their opinions on in this thread.
to which your response and attitude has consistently been:
Riot Girl wrote:Yes, it was garbage. |
Riot Girl
You'll Cowards Don't Even Smoke Crack
2609
|
Posted - 2014.01.28 03:02:00 -
[468] - Quote
You want me to prove that people will use mission sites for PvP under your proposal? Considering the sandbox nature of the game and the large number of players, I'd say it's definitely a worthwhile consideration and mission runners are justified in asking to hear the measures you're going to take to prevent this from happening. Oh god. |
Abdul 'aleem
Sumiko Yoshida Corporation
146
|
Posted - 2014.01.28 03:16:00 -
[469] - Quote
Riot Girl wrote:You want me to prove that people will use mission sites for PvP under your proposal? Considering the sandbox nature of the game and the large number of players, I'd say it's definitely a worthwhile consideration and mission runners are justified in asking to hear the measures you're going to take to prevent this from happening.
This concern has been voiced by you many times and addressed with post #434.
I understand that you don't agree, it's time to move on.
I believe that you are spam posting and it is interfering with the discussion of more substantiated topics.
Help me to understand this forum rule and tell me if your posts do not meet all of of the criteria listed:
12. Spamming is prohibited.
Spam is defined as the repetitive posting of the same topic or nonsensical post that has no substance and is often designed to annoy other forum users. This can include the words GÇ£firstGÇ¥, GÇ£go back to 'insert other game name'" and other such posts that contribute no value to forum discussion. Spamming also includes the posting of ASCII art within a forum post. |
Riot Girl
You'll Cowards Don't Even Smoke Crack
2609
|
Posted - 2014.01.28 03:46:00 -
[470] - Quote
Abdul 'aleem wrote:Spam is defined as the repetitive posting of the same topic or nonsensical post that has no substance and is often designed to annoy other forum users. Sums up pretty much all of your posts.
Oh god. |
|
Abdul 'aleem
Sumiko Yoshida Corporation
146
|
Posted - 2014.01.28 04:01:00 -
[471] - Quote
Riot Girl wrote:Abdul 'aleem wrote:Spam is defined as the repetitive posting of the same topic or nonsensical post that has no substance and is often designed to annoy other forum users. Sums up pretty much all of your posts.
I am sorry that you feel that way.
You'll just have to accept that many others don't agree with you.
|
Estella Osoka
Deep Void Merc Syndicate Sicarius Draconis
291
|
Posted - 2014.01.28 04:34:00 -
[472] - Quote
Crappy idea proposed by a person with 2 kills (POCOs mind you) and his posting history is contained to 3 threads (2 started by him).
As this idea really only benefits griefers, I suggest all you mission runners relook at his idea and think about the implications of someone (or someones) warping into your mission already blinky.
He readily admits that this would cause your precious mission sites to potentially become defacto PVP arenas while you are in there trying to mission; and nothing to really stop them from shooting your mission npcs, wrecks, and taking your loot. Well, you could shoot back, but we all know what happens when a PVE fit ship takes on a PVP fit ship.
|
Hasikan Miallok
Republic University Minmatar Republic
219
|
Posted - 2014.01.28 04:43:00 -
[473] - Quote
As far as the unique item being unavailable on market. A judicious thing to do would be buy one before accepting the mission. That way if your ripped off your covered.
If on the other hand you succeed in getting your own mission item, hand one of them in and sell the spare. |
Abdul 'aleem
Sumiko Yoshida Corporation
151
|
Posted - 2014.01.28 16:29:00 -
[474] - Quote
Estella Osoka wrote:Crappy idea proposed by a person with 2 kills (POCOs mind you) and his posting history is contained to 3 threads (2 started by him).
As this idea really only benefits griefers, I suggest all you mission runners relook at his idea and think about the implications of someone (or someones) warping into your mission already blinky.
He readily admits that this would cause your precious mission sites to potentially become defacto PVP arenas while you are in there trying to mission; and nothing to really stop them from shooting your mission npcs, wrecks, and taking your loot. Well, you could shoot back, but we all know what happens when a PVE fit ship takes on a PVP fit ship.
You are spamming a dead issue to promote fear because you don't have a legitimate objection based on facts.
The false claim that this suggestion would by default automatically make every mission pocket a "PvP arena" has been countered in post #434.
12. Spamming is prohibited.
Spam is defined as the repetitive posting of the same topic or nonsensical post that has no substance and is often designed to annoy other forum users. This can include the words GÇ£firstGÇ¥, GÇ£go back to 'insert other game name'" and other such posts that contribute no value to forum discussion. Spamming also includes the posting of ASCII art within a forum post. |
Priestess Lin
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
83
|
Posted - 2014.01.28 16:46:00 -
[475] - Quote
Strong post OP. Totally agree its very unfair the power these sociopaths have to inflict massive damage to others with zero costs and risks to themselves. |
Abdul 'aleem
Sumiko Yoshida Corporation
151
|
Posted - 2014.01.28 17:05:00 -
[476] - Quote
Priestess Lin wrote:Strong post OP. Totally agree its very unfair the power these sociopaths have to inflict massive damage to others with zero costs and risks to themselves.
Thanks for the support.
|
unidenify
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
32
|
Posted - 2014.01.28 17:23:00 -
[477] - Quote
suspect flag won't work because it is counter by cloaked ships best method in my opinion is: add delay time. how it would work open wreck loot mission item suspect flag appear window appear that show looting in progress with 30-45 sec duration. if ship move out of range or got destroyed during this small window of time. loot is cancelled it only apply to mission item. junk item can be instantly looted. |
Abdul 'aleem
Sumiko Yoshida Corporation
151
|
Posted - 2014.01.28 17:26:00 -
[478] - Quote
unidenify wrote:suspect flag won't work because it is counter by cloaked ships best method in my opinion is: add delay time. how it would work open wreck loot mission item suspect flag appear window appear that show looting in progress with 30-45 sec duration. if ship move out of range or got destroyed during this small window of time. loot is cancelled it only apply to mission item. junk item can be instantly looted.
Re-read the intentions of the suggestion in the original post.
TLDR
Game balance is off. Add a suspect flag for trespassing that is triggered when the act of mission item theft is initiated (when the illegal warp into the mission owner's site begins) not only after the item is looted.
There is no reason that a mission thief should have Concord protection after they invade another player's mission space and while they are waiting to loot the mission item. |
unidenify
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
32
|
Posted - 2014.01.28 17:43:00 -
[479] - Quote
Abdul 'aleem wrote:unidenify wrote:suspect flag won't work because it is counter by cloaked ships best method in my opinion is: add delay time. how it would work open wreck loot mission item suspect flag appear window appear that show looting in progress with 30-45 sec duration. if ship move out of range or got destroyed during this small window of time. loot is cancelled it only apply to mission item. junk item can be instantly looted. Re-read the intentions of the suggestion in the original post. The suggestion does in fact accomplish all of them. For clarity: The intention of this change is to: 1) allow the missioner options for counter-play and defense of assets that currently do not exist, making it possible to prevent the crime as opposed to only being able to act after the item has been stolen (which is often too late or results in an excessive risk of the item being destroyed) 2) balance the risk/reward equation for both the criminal and the missioner (raising the thief/griefer's exposure time as a valid target and allowing the missioner to act prior to the item being stolen) I submit this idea to the forums. It is not intended as a complete or perfect remedy to the problem of unique mission item theft, only as a way of regaining some risk/reward balance for both the missioner and the thief/griefer. As it is now, there is a disproportionate amount of cost/risk to the missioner for failure, compared to that of the thief/griefer, and little to no opportunity to counter. TLDR Game balance is off. Add a suspect flag for trespassing that is triggered when the act of mission item theft is initiated (when the illegal warp into the mission owner's site begins) not only after the item is looted. There is no reason that a mission thief should have Concord protection after they invade another player's mission space and while they are waiting to loot the mission item.
it do nothing to stop cloaky frigates from steal your loot because you have no way to stop them (TIP: coverts Ops frigates can warp in cloak so you can't even see them warp into your mission area, let along ability to stop them) where my idea make it difficult for thief to steal mission item, and do address silly issue like ninja salvager, innocent wander, and "friend who D/C"
|
Riot Girl
You'll Cowards Don't Even Smoke Crack
2619
|
Posted - 2014.01.28 18:01:00 -
[480] - Quote
Abdul 'aleem wrote:As it is now, there is a disproportionate amount of cost/risk to the missioner for failure, compared to that of the thief/griefer, and little to no opportunity to counter. What is the cost of failure for a missioner?
Oh god. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 [16] 17 18 19 20 .. 22 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |