| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 3 post(s) |
Dun'Gal
Myriad Contractors Inc.
59
   |
Posted - 2014.01.29 18:42:00 -
[1] - Quote
OP apparently doesn't realize when to stop posting.
Hint: it's when pretty much every corner of the eve forums has shot down your idea.
It's a good effort (i'm being very generous here,) but a terrible idea. |
Dun'Gal
Myriad Contractors Inc.
62
|
Posted - 2014.01.29 23:25:00 -
[2] - Quote
Pretty sure he's saying that if you can provide an example other than preemptive strike, he may concede the fact that said example exists and you're not just blowing wind out your ass. |
Dun'Gal
Myriad Contractors Inc.
62
|
Posted - 2014.01.29 23:29:00 -
[3] - Quote
Alright, tell you what, now I'm asking the same question. What options, other than preemptive strike, are made available to the mission runner as a result of what you are proposing? |
Dun'Gal
Myriad Contractors Inc.
62
|
Posted - 2014.01.29 23:59:00 -
[4] - Quote
So out of curiosity I decided to see how far back Mike has been trying to get you to give him a straight answer, and it seems about a page and a half now. In that page and a half you suggested that newcomers to this thread return to posts between 223 and 232 for the answer.
Thought I'd humor you and check for said answer and here are some things I've discovered.
A statement that there is multiple forms of counterplay with no examples
Abdul 'aleem wrote:The suggested suspect flag for trespassing will help to restore game balance and create counter-play options that do not currently exist.
A statement confirming the only option this opens up is preemptive strike
Abdul 'aleem wrote:This makes that invader open to attack from anyone and everyone immediately.
The mission owner then immediately has the options to attack the invader alone, get help from anyone in local or not attack at all.
That's all.
Another statement suggesting preemptive strike or possibly attack after which is not a change
Abdul 'aleem wrote:My suggestion offers everyone the right to shoot the invader, not just the missioner.
And a very flawed argument, see below for why this is flawed (and hilarious)
Abdul 'aleem wrote:If CCP intended for salvagers to have 0 risk in salvaging, they would be immune to attack in all areas while they salvaged. It's legal to salvage wrecks in WH, Low and Null space, but doing so carries a certain amount of risk due to the location choice. The fact that salvagers can be attacked while salvaging in these locations is proof that CCP does not have the intention of making the choice to salvage risk free.
By the logic of that last quote missioning in and of itself should flag the mission runner, let me use your own statement to argue this reasong:
If CCP intended for missioners to have 0 risk in missioning, they would be immune to attack in all areas while they missioned. It's legal to run missions in Low and Null space, but doing so carries a certain amount of risk due to the location choice. The fact that missioners can be attacked while missioning in these locations is proof that CCP does not have the intention of making the choice to mission risk free.
Would you care to comment on this? Also can you give me an example other than preemptive strike, that would be made available as a result of the change proposed in your OP? |
Dun'Gal
Myriad Contractors Inc.
63
|
Posted - 2014.01.30 00:23:00 -
[5] - Quote
My concern is your inability to answer the simple questions that have been asked of you, namely the following:
What new options does your proposal open up other than pre-emptive strike by a mission runner/others, to assist the mission runner in defending the loot from a mission?
Additionally I would like you to comment on the quotes I posted here, in particular the quote of your argument about why salvagers should be flagged and my response to this quote. For your benefit I will reference it, seeing as you seem incapable of reading back.
Dun'Gal wrote:Abdul 'aleem wrote:If CCP intended for salvagers to have 0 risk in salvaging, they would be immune to attack in all areas while they salvaged. It's legal to salvage wrecks in WH, Low and Null space, but doing so carries a certain amount of risk due to the location choice. The fact that salvagers can be attacked while salvaging in these locations is proof that CCP does not have the intention of making the choice to salvage risk free. By the logic of that last quote missioning in and of itself should flag the mission runner, let me use your own statement to argue this reasong: If CCP intended for missioners to have 0 risk in missioning, they would be immune to attack in all areas while they missioned. It's legal to run missions in Low and Null space, but doing so carries a certain amount of risk due to the location choice. The fact that missioners can be attacked while missioning in these locations is proof that CCP does not have the intention of making the choice to mission risk free. Would you care to comment on this?
|
Dun'Gal
Myriad Contractors Inc.
64
|
Posted - 2014.01.30 00:38:00 -
[6] - Quote
Please instead of referencing approximate posts (I have already once humored you in this regard and there was nothing new there,) can you instead provide quotes of specific examples of additional counterplay, outside of the previously stated pre-emptive strike by missioner or other neutral.
As to the quote about salvagers, I don't really need a comment on it - fairly certain you realize the flaw in your argument. |
Dun'Gal
Myriad Contractors Inc.
65
|
Posted - 2014.01.30 01:04:00 -
[7] - Quote
I am sincere, so I will humor you once more.
Post 241
Kirkwood Ross wrote:This opens up a new type of merc service for people who want to pop others in hi-sec. Go to a mission hub and cloak up in a mission, when a guy some sniffing around decloak and ambush. Preemptive strike
Post 521 Mentions literally nothing with regards to counterplay, except at one point using the word vigilante. Which implies preemptive strike, or perhaps attack after the theft (which you can already do) nothing new here.
I also read everything up to and a bit beyond your last suggessted post and found this in post 529
Abdul 'aleem wrote:And, the added suspect flag gives all of the other benefits listed in the OP, specifically many more options are available for legally countering the invasion. which is you making the same blanket statement with no examples.
And finally post 538
My Little Pyongyang wrote:Mission bears won't shoot suspects. Players who pose as mission bears setting up traps for griefers will shoot suspects. This is where the fun is. Is again showing a "preemptive strike" veiled in an activity that does nothing to protect your mission loot, which is the intent of your OP.
So, please provide specific examples of additional counterplay that your proposal gives, other than a pre-emptive strike by the mission runner/other neutrals. If said examples exist, in order to help EVERYONE involved here you should probably include them in your OP. |
| |
|