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) |
Abdul 'aleem
Sumiko Yoshida Corporation
144
|
Posted - 2014.01.27 11:58:00 -
[331] - Quote
Archibald Thistlewaite III wrote:Abdul 'aleem wrote:Archibald Thistlewaite III wrote:
Your whole presumption of 'ownership' is flawed.
Yeah, thanks for your opinion. But, you're wrong as Diachi Yamato helps to prove. This has already been discussed and proven. If you have any new counters to the proofs listed in the original post, feel free to post them. If you read the whole post, you'll see I've just disproved it. You are wrong. Sorry you don't like that.
Yeah you really have not.
|
Archibald Thistlewaite III
387
|
Posted - 2014.01.27 12:03:00 -
[332] - Quote
Abdul 'aleem wrote:Archibald Thistlewaite III wrote:Abdul 'aleem wrote:Archibald Thistlewaite III wrote:
Your whole presumption of 'ownership' is flawed.
Yeah, thanks for your opinion. But, you're wrong as Diachi Yamato helps to prove. This has already been discussed and proven. If you have any new counters to the proofs listed in the original post, feel free to post them. If you read the whole post, you'll see I've just disproved it. You are wrong. Sorry you don't like that. Yeah you really have not.
Yes I have.
The mission pocket is always there, only mission items and structures are spawned for the player when the mission is warped to.
I wonder if its possible to have a mission spawn on top of a bookmark some one has already made?
You want people to go suspect for warping to an area of space because you own it and they are trespassing. That space was there long before you accepted the mission. |
Abdul 'aleem
Sumiko Yoshida Corporation
144
|
Posted - 2014.01.27 12:07:00 -
[333] - Quote
Archibald Thistlewaite III wrote:Abdul 'aleem wrote:Archibald Thistlewaite III wrote:Abdul 'aleem wrote:Archibald Thistlewaite III wrote:
Your whole presumption of 'ownership' is flawed.
Yeah, thanks for your opinion. But, you're wrong as Diachi Yamato helps to prove. This has already been discussed and proven. If you have any new counters to the proofs listed in the original post, feel free to post them. If you read the whole post, you'll see I've just disproved it. You are wrong. Sorry you don't like that. Yeah you really have not. Yes I have. The mission pocket is always there, only mission items and structures are spawned for the player when the mission is warped to. I wonder if its possible to have a mission spawn on top of a bookmark some one has already made? You want people to go suspect for warping to an area of space because you own it and they are trespassing. That space was there long before you accepted the mission.
*sigh*
Here we go again folks.... sorry for feeding the trolls/ thread crappers.
There are four proofs, did you read them all?
|
Archibald Thistlewaite III
387
|
Posted - 2014.01.27 12:12:00 -
[334] - Quote
Yes, I have read the whole thread.
You're wrong.
I have pointed out why you are wrong. Using your 'proofs' you can only claim ownership of the mission structures and items, yet you want to claim ownership of the space.
That space is always there, some of my best safe spots were originally missions. That space still exists even though the mission does not.
|
Abdul 'aleem
Sumiko Yoshida Corporation
144
|
Posted - 2014.01.27 12:13:00 -
[335] - Quote
Archibald Thistlewaite III wrote:Yes, I have read the whole thread.
You're wrong.
I have pointed out why you are wrong. Using your 'proofs' you can only claim ownership of the mission structures and items, yet you want to claim ownership of the space.
That space is always there, some of my best safe spots were originally missions. That space still exists even though the mission does not.
I am suggesting that CCP treat the mission pocket space assigned to and created for the missioner, especially COSMOS and other unique mission pockets, as belonging to the missioner. The following game mechanics support the claim that the mission pocket does in fact belong to the missioner and validate the suggestion that they be treated as such:
1) The mission pocket space is created as a result of private and individual interaction between the player and their mission agent for the purpose of that player completing an assigned task
2) it is impossible for any player to access a mission pocket owned by another player without action from the owner (the player can exercise his ownership rights to deny access to his mission site by simply staying docked, among other things)
3) the game assigns ownership of all wrecks in the mission space to the missioner and his fleet regardless of who kills them
4) the player owning the mission site can exercise their right of ownership to destroy the site by simply choosing the "fail" option available exclusively to them
Which don't you understand? |
Archibald Thistlewaite III
387
|
Posted - 2014.01.27 12:13:00 -
[336] - Quote
Abdul 'aleem wrote:
*sigh*
Here we go again folks.... sorry for feeding the trolls/ thread crappers.
There are four proofs, did you read them all?
I thought you wanted a discussion?
I have come here with a sensible counter to your argument and you start name calling.
|
Abdul 'aleem
Sumiko Yoshida Corporation
144
|
Posted - 2014.01.27 12:14:00 -
[337] - Quote
Abdul 'aleem wrote:Archibald Thistlewaite III wrote:Yes, I have read the whole thread.
You're wrong.
I have pointed out why you are wrong. Using your 'proofs' you can only claim ownership of the mission structures and items, yet you want to claim ownership of the space.
That space is always there, some of my best safe spots were originally missions. That space still exists even though the mission does not.
I am suggesting that CCP treat the mission pocket space assigned to and created for the missioner, especially COSMOS and other unique mission pockets, as belonging to the missioner. The following game mechanics support the claim that the mission pocket does in fact belong to the missioner and validate the suggestion that they be treated as such: 1) The mission pocket space is created as a result of private and individual interaction between the player and their mission agent for the purpose of that player completing an assigned task 2) it is impossible for any player to access a mission pocket owned by another player without action from the owner (the player can exercise his ownership rights to deny access to his mission site by simply staying docked, among other things) 3) the game assigns ownership of all wrecks in the mission space to the missioner and his fleet regardless of who kills them 4) the player owning the mission site can exercise their right of ownership to destroy the site by simply choosing the "fail" option available exclusively to them Which don't you understand?
re-posted because you may have missed it. |
Archibald Thistlewaite III
387
|
Posted - 2014.01.27 12:20:00 -
[338] - Quote
Abdul 'aleem wrote:
I am suggesting that CCP treat the mission pocket space assigned to and created for the missioner, especially COSMOS and other unique mission pockets, as belonging to the missioner. The following game mechanics support the claim that the mission pocket does in fact belong to the missioner and validate the suggestion that they be treated as such:
1) The mission pocket space is created as a result of private and individual interaction between the player and their mission agent for the purpose of that player completing an assigned task
That is wrong the space is always there, its the mission items/structures that are created for the player.
Abdul 'aleem wrote: 2) it is impossible for any player to access a mission pocket owned by another player without action from the owner (the player can exercise his ownership rights to deny access to his mission site by simply staying docked, among other things)
Yes they can, a player can access any area of the solar system which a mission can spawn in. Its the mission items/structures they can't access.
Abdul 'aleem wrote: 3) the game assigns ownership of all wrecks in the mission space to the missioner and his fleet regardless of who kills them
Yes. Any player stealing form the mission runner should and does go suspect.
Abdul 'aleem wrote: 4) the player owning the mission site can exercise their right of ownership to destroy the site by simply choosing the "fail" option available exclusively to them
They can despawn all the mission items/structures by failing or finishing the mission. Unless of course someone is on grid with them. Edit- by them I mean the structures/items. Which don't you understand?[/quote] [/quote]
You seem to be confusing space with mission items/structures. |
Abdul 'aleem
Sumiko Yoshida Corporation
144
|
Posted - 2014.01.27 12:23:00 -
[339] - Quote
Archibald Thistlewaite III wrote:Abdul 'aleem wrote:
I am suggesting that CCP treat the mission pocket space assigned to and created for the missioner, especially COSMOS and other unique mission pockets, as belonging to the missioner. The following game mechanics support the claim that the mission pocket does in fact belong to the missioner and validate the suggestion that they be treated as such:
1) The mission pocket space is created as a result of private and individual interaction between the player and their mission agent for the purpose of that player completing an assigned task
That is wrong the space is always there, its the mission items/structures that are created for the player. Abdul 'aleem wrote: 2) it is impossible for any player to access a mission pocket owned by another player without action from the owner (the player can exercise his ownership rights to deny access to his mission site by simply staying docked, among other things)
Yes they can, a player can access any area of the solar system which a mission can spawn in. Its the mission items/structures they can't access. Abdul 'aleem wrote: 3) the game assigns ownership of all wrecks in the mission space to the missioner and his fleet regardless of who kills them
Yes. Any player stealing form the mission runner should and does go suspect. Abdul 'aleem wrote: 4) the player owning the mission site can exercise their right of ownership to destroy the site by simply choosing the "fail" option available exclusively to them
They can despawn all the mission items/structures by failing or finishing the mission. Unless of course someone is on grid with them. Which don't you understand? [/quote]
You seem to be confusing space with mission items/structures.[/quote]
I think everyone understands your arguments.
We can agree to disagree.
|
Archibald Thistlewaite III
387
|
Posted - 2014.01.27 12:24:00 -
[340] - Quote
So you are not interested in a discussion about your idea?
Fine. You should look at yourself before calling other people trolls. |
|
Abdul 'aleem
Sumiko Yoshida Corporation
144
|
Posted - 2014.01.27 12:27:00 -
[341] - Quote
Archibald Thistlewaite III wrote:So you are not interested in a discussion about your idea?
Fine. You should look at yourself before calling other people trolls.
No I think that you stated your opinion and your reasons pretty clearly.
No need to argue. The readers can decide whose proofs are more valid.
I will leave you with this though, because you may have missed it:
DeMichael Crimson wrote:+1 for the OP. I fully support and endorse this proposal. It is well thought out and concise. Those posting in opposition are failing miserably trying to come up with reasons not to implement a suspect flag for Mission Invasion. Hell, even the term sounds aggressive : Quote:INVASION : An invasion is a military offensive in which large parts of the armed forces of one geopolitical entity aggressively enter territory controlled by another such entity, generally with the objective of either conquering, liberating or re-establishing control or authority over a territory, forcing the partition of a country, altering the established government or gaining concessions from said government, or a combination thereof. An invasion can be the cause of a war, be a part of a larger strategy to end a war, or it can constitute an entire war in itself. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion As for ownership, the mission pocket actually belongs to the Agent who is offering it to the player. Once the player accepts the mission offer, that player is now held accountable for it. That, in all intents and purposes, makes the mission runner the owner regardless of the Sov listed in the top left corner of the screen. Usually the actual site itself doesn't spawn until the Mission Runner initiates warp. There's only a couple of Cosmos Missions that actually spawn the site when accepted such as the 2nd mission of Cosmos Agent - Drone Mind. That mission spawned a site with a visible warp beacon on Overview which anyone could access. CCP has just recently programed that site to spawn multiple times in multiple systems all at the same time due to other players constantly completing the site causing Cosmos Mission Runners to either fail or pay exorbitant prices for the objective item. The same goes for a couple of other Cosmos Agent missions which have visible beacons in Overview. Anyway back to topic, doesn't matter if it's a Ninja Salvager or Suicide Ganker who enters the site, it's still an invasion which is an aggressive act. Those who think Ninja Salvagers should be exempt or are trying to use that as a reason to dismiss the OP's proposal need to seriously do some research on the terms used : Quote:NINJA : A ninja or shinobi was a covert agent or mercenary in feudal Japan. The functions of the ninja included espionage, sabotage, infiltration, and assassination, and open combat in certain situations. Their covert methods of waging war contrasted the ninja with the samurai, who observed and followed strict rules about honor and combat. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ninja A true Ninja Salvager would never be seen by the Mission Runner. As such a Suspect Flag wouldn't matter. Most of the so called 'Ninja Salvagers' in this game now are nothing more than Mission Invaders. They obviously aren't very Ninja like at all and have no problem taking loot to get flagged in order to provoke PvP action. So the Suspect Flag is again not a problem. As for new players, the safety system is set to full (green) right from the start. They wouldn't be able to warp to the site since that would be a suspect action, thus there wouldn't be any accidents happening. All players have the option to change their safety settings from Full (green) to allow suspect acts (yellow) or to perform criminal acts (red). If they do so, ignorance of consequences for those actions can not be used as an excuse. DMC |
Sola Mercury
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
63
|
Posted - 2014.01.27 12:35:00 -
[342] - Quote
Ownership of mission pocket is completely irrelevant and speaking about it, only derails the tread. I dont see a reason in changing wide affecting game mechanics, only to have issues in a single mission solved. Change the mission instead, as has been proposed by some in here. - Mission respawn after downtime - Move away from static mission location or, add scamming rats holding everyone in place |
Archibald Thistlewaite III
387
|
Posted - 2014.01.27 12:36:00 -
[343] - Quote
I have read the whole thread.
For the record I actually agree the risk/reward balance is a little skewed in favour of the thief.
Yes, there are counters you can use to mitigate the risks as a mission runner but it is still far to easy for someone to steal the mission item.
Its just your solution wouldn't work and is based on a pants on head assumption.
They way I would work it is:
Stop everyone form warping directly out of missions sites. You entered by acceleration gate so you have to leave by an acceleration gate.
Have the mission item/rat spawn 100km~ away from the exit gate. The missioner would have time to shoot the thief and also to balance it a little the missioner can't warp out (without the gate) if their tank fails. |
Abdul 'aleem
Sumiko Yoshida Corporation
144
|
Posted - 2014.01.27 12:37:00 -
[344] - Quote
Sola Mercury wrote:Ownership of mission pocket is completely irrelevant and speaking about it, only derails the tread. I dont see a reason in changing wide affecting game mechanics, only to have issues in a single mission solved. Change the mission instead, as has been proposed by some in here. - Mission respawn after downtime - Move away from static mission location or, add scamming rats holding everyone in place
This has been proposed but is outside the scope of the current discussion.
Adding both a suspect flag for mission invasion and making mission locations random or semi-random has been acknowledged as a potent combination in favor of game balance. |
Abdul 'aleem
Sumiko Yoshida Corporation
145
|
Posted - 2014.01.27 13:10:00 -
[345] - Quote
Abdul 'aleem wrote:Archibald Thistlewaite III wrote:Abdul 'aleem wrote:
I am suggesting that CCP treat the mission pocket space assigned to and created for the missioner, especially COSMOS and other unique mission pockets, as belonging to the missioner. The following game mechanics support the claim that the mission pocket does in fact belong to the missioner and validate the suggestion that they be treated as such:
1) The mission pocket space is created as a result of private and individual interaction between the player and their mission agent for the purpose of that player completing an assigned task
That is wrong the space is always there, its the mission items/structures that are created for the player. Abdul 'aleem wrote: 2) it is impossible for any player to access a mission pocket owned by another player without action from the owner (the player can exercise his ownership rights to deny access to his mission site by simply staying docked, among other things)
Yes they can, a player can access any area of the solar system which a mission can spawn in. Its the mission items/structures they can't access. Abdul 'aleem wrote: 3) the game assigns ownership of all wrecks in the mission space to the missioner and his fleet regardless of who kills them
4) the player owning the mission site can exercise their right of ownership to destroy the site by simply choosing the "fail" option available exclusively to them
They can despawn all the mission items/structures by failing or finishing the mission. Unless of course someone is on grid with them. You seem to be confusing space with mission items/structures.
Alright... I will put in some things for clarity.
1) the space that a POS is put up in exists before it is anchored/onlined, but after it is onlined we all know who owns that space.....
2) tell me how to get to a mission pocket of a missioner who draws a mission and never undocks?
3) the fact that the game recognizes ownership of the wrecks no matter who kills them is a proof that the game treats the mission pocket AND what's in it as "owned" by the missioner.
4) who else has the ability to exercise the right of ownership to destroy the missioner's mission site? |
Archibald Thistlewaite III
390
|
Posted - 2014.01.27 13:17:00 -
[346] - Quote
Abdul 'aleem wrote:Alright... I will put in some things for clarity. 1) the space that a POS is put up in there before it is onlined, but after it is onlined we all know who owns that space..... What have POS's got to do with anything? Who owns the space the POS is in is in the system info top left of screen. Or are you saying if you warp on grid with a POS you should go suspect?
Abdul 'aleem wrote: 2) tell me how to get to a mission pocket of a missioner who draws a mission and never undocks?
The same way you get to any point in space. Its the mission structures/items you can't get to until the missioner undocks and warps to the location.
Abdul 'aleem wrote: 3) the fact that the game recognizes ownership of the wrecks no matter hwo kills them is a proof that the game treats the mission pocket AND what's in it as "owned" by the missioner.
NO its not. Its proof that the game recognizes that the wrecks are owned by the missioner, but not the salvage.
Abdul 'aleem wrote: 4) who else has the ability to exercise the right of ownership to destroy the missioner's mission site?
Its the structures/items that are despawned(destroyed). The location remains.
You are getting the location in space confused with the items that are in that space. Which is why having people go suspect just for entering a location is a bad idea. |
Abdul 'aleem
Sumiko Yoshida Corporation
145
|
Posted - 2014.01.27 13:19:00 -
[347] - Quote
Archibald Thistlewaite III wrote:Abdul 'aleem wrote:Alright... I will put in some things for clarity. 1) the space that a POS is put up in there before it is onlined, but after it is onlined we all know who owns that space..... What have POS's got to do with anything? Who owns the space the POS is in is in the system info top left of screen. Or are you saying if you warp on grid with a POS you should go suspect? Abdul 'aleem wrote: 2) tell me how to get to a mission pocket of a missioner who draws a mission and never undocks?
The same way you get to any point in space. Its the mission structures/items you can't get to until the missioner undocks and warps to the location. Abdul 'aleem wrote: 3) the fact that the game recognizes ownership of the wrecks no matter hwo kills them is a proof that the game treats the mission pocket AND what's in it as "owned" by the missioner.
NO its not. Its proof that the game recognizes that the wrecks are owned by the missioner, but not the salvage. Abdul 'aleem wrote: 4) who else has the ability to exercise the right of ownership to destroy the missioner's mission site?
Its the structures/items that are despawned(destroyed). The location remains. You are getting the location in space confused with the items that are in that space. Which is why having people go suspect just for entering a location is a bad idea.
Now who doesn't want to discuss? Answer the questions and offer some proof to back up your opinions. |
Archibald Thistlewaite III
390
|
Posted - 2014.01.27 13:25:00 -
[348] - Quote
I think you'll find I have responded to all your points.
Its not my fault your presumption of ownership is wrong.
The other reasons why your idea is a bad one have already been mention. ie; salvaging, the power creep as in, if you 'own' the mission site then I 'own' the annom I'm in. As that doesn't spawn until someone warps to it, just like a mission. You would also have to extend 'ownership' to wormholes as they don't spawn until someone warps to them.
You do not own the mission space. Using your own 'proofs' means you only 'own' the mission structures/items that are spawned for you.
I'm happy to discuss your idea with you, its not my fault its a bad idea and based on a silly assumption. |
Archibald Thistlewaite III
390
|
Posted - 2014.01.27 13:31:00 -
[349] - Quote
Abdul 'aleem wrote:
Now who doesn't want to discuss? Answer the questions and offer some proof to back up your opinions.
1) The proof is top left of the screeen. 2) The proof is I have safespots in location where missions occurred and the mission is no longer there but the safespot is. 3) The proof is shown on the wrecks and on the overview. 4) The proof is if a missioner despawns the items/structures with another pilot on the grid. The Structures/items do not despawn and any bookmarks still work.
Stop confusing to different things.
Mission items/structures are not the same thing as a location in space. Its an important distinction when you want people to go suspect when the warp to a location. |
Archibald Thistlewaite III
390
|
Posted - 2014.01.27 13:47:00 -
[350] - Quote
Lets not forget sov. nulsec. Now there is space that is owned by players. Are you suggesting anyone trespassing in sov. nulsec should have a suspect timer?
Not much of an issue when entering, but if everytime you leave a sov. system to empire space (Hisec systems especially) you have to sit out a 15min suspect timer for trespassing. You'll end up with camps both sides of an hisec entry system.
It would be very silly.
Having people go suspect for trespassing is not a very good idea. |
|
Abdul 'aleem
Sumiko Yoshida Corporation
145
|
Posted - 2014.01.27 13:48:00 -
[351] - Quote
Archibald Thistlewaite III wrote:Abdul 'aleem wrote:
Now who doesn't want to discuss? Answer the questions and offer some proof to back up your opinions.
1) The proof is top left of the screeen. 2) The proof is I have safespots in location where missions occurred and the mission is no longer there but the safespot is. 3) The proof is shown on the wrecks and on the overview. 4) The proof is if a missioner despawns the items/structures with another pilot on the grid. The Structures/items do not despawn and any bookmarks still work. Stop confusing to different things. Mission items/structures are not the same thing as a location in space. Its an important distinction when you want people to go suspect when the warp to a location.
It is clear you do not want to address the questions because you know the answers and they go against your position.
The only thing that I need to clarify for readers is:
4) no one can exercise the right of ownership to destroy a mission site except the mission owner. Period.
No one yet has given instructions on how to access a mission owner's site if the missioner accepts a mission and never undocks. If it was intended to be a public space accessible to all, everyone should be able to do so at any time. They can't.
No one has stated, much less supported, any claim that anyone other than the mission owner can exercise the "right of ownership" to destroy the mision site.
Everyone has acknowledged that the game assigns the wrecks of a mission to the owner of that mission regardless of who kills them in that space.
And, they refuse all the proofs that exist that prove them wrong. |
Abdul 'aleem
Sumiko Yoshida Corporation
145
|
Posted - 2014.01.27 13:53:00 -
[352] - Quote
Archibald Thistlewaite III wrote:Lets not forget sov. nulsec. Now there is space that is owned by players. Are you suggesting anyone trespassing in sov. nulsec should have a suspect timer?
Not much of an issue when entering, but if everytime you leave a sov. system to empire space (Hisec systems especially) you have to sit out a 15min suspect timer for trespassing. You'll end up with camps both sides of an hisec entry system.
It would be very silly.
Having people go suspect for trespassing is not a very good idea.
I think that you need to read the original post especially the TLDR
Here is it for everyone else:
Abdul 'aleem wrote:
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.
|
Archibald Thistlewaite III
390
|
Posted - 2014.01.27 13:55:00 -
[353] - Quote
Once again your confusing mission items/structures with the location. That is a very important distinction to make when proposing giving players a suspect flag for warping to a location.
Even putting aside your flawed idea of ownership. Having people go suspect for warping to a location is a bad idea.
Salvaging is a profession CCP designed so you did not get any flags for doing. Your idea would effect them greatly. I'm hunting a war target, I see them undock and warp to a safe. After scanning them down I warp my fleet to them only to find they were the other Vargur and the whole fleet goes suspect.
Having suspect flags based on warping to a location is a bad idea. |
Archibald Thistlewaite III
390
|
Posted - 2014.01.27 13:57:00 -
[354] - Quote
Abdul 'aleem wrote:
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.
Ok.
So you are asking for special mechanics to be added that only apply to hisec mission runners.
Its still a bad idea. That's based on a flawed idea of ownership. |
Abdul 'aleem
Sumiko Yoshida Corporation
145
|
Posted - 2014.01.27 13:58:00 -
[355] - Quote
Archibald Thistlewaite III wrote:Once again your confusing mission items/structures with the location. That is a very important distinction to make when proposing giving players a suspect flag for warping to a location.
Even putting aside your flawed idea of ownership. Having people go suspect for warping to a location is a bad idea.
Salvaging is a profession CCP designed so you did not get any flags for doing. Your idea would effect them greatly. I'm hunting a war target, I see them undock and warp to a safe. After scanning them down I warp my fleet to them only to find they were the other Vargur and the whole fleet goes suspect.
Having suspect flags based on warping to a location is a bad idea.
You really don't understand the idea or are deliberately thread crapping.
Another Princess Achaja alt? |
Archibald Thistlewaite III
390
|
Posted - 2014.01.27 13:59:00 -
[356] - Quote
Abdul 'aleem wrote:Archibald Thistlewaite III wrote:Once again your confusing mission items/structures with the location. That is a very important distinction to make when proposing giving players a suspect flag for warping to a location.
Even putting aside your flawed idea of ownership. Having people go suspect for warping to a location is a bad idea.
Salvaging is a profession CCP designed so you did not get any flags for doing. Your idea would effect them greatly. I'm hunting a war target, I see them undock and warp to a safe. After scanning them down I warp my fleet to them only to find they were the other Vargur and the whole fleet goes suspect.
Having suspect flags based on warping to a location is a bad idea. You really don't understand the idea or are deliberately thread crapping. Another Princess Achaja alt?
I understand the idea. Its just a very bad one as I've explained.
Your presumption of ownership is wrong.
Having suspect flags based on where you are warping to is a very bad idea, for the reasons that have been mentioned.
And you are back to the baseless accusations.... |
Abdul 'aleem
Sumiko Yoshida Corporation
145
|
Posted - 2014.01.27 14:05:00 -
[357] - Quote
Abdul 'aleem wrote:Archibald Thistlewaite III wrote:Once again your confusing mission items/structures with the location. That is a very important distinction to make when proposing giving players a suspect flag for warping to a location.
Even putting aside your flawed idea of ownership. Having people go suspect for warping to a location is a bad idea.
Salvaging is a profession CCP designed so you did not get any flags for doing. Your idea would effect them greatly. I'm hunting a war target, I see them undock and warp to a safe. After scanning them down I warp my fleet to them only to find they were the other Vargur and the whole fleet goes suspect.
Having suspect flags based on warping to a location is a bad idea. You really don't understand the idea or are deliberately thread crapping. Another Princess Achaja alt?
Since you have obviously not read the thread or are thread crapping:
Karynn Denton wrote:
Two things concern me about your suggestion.
First up, it would have a detrimental impact on salvaging.
...
Your suggestion would criminalize salvaging and CCP has repeatedly stated that they intended salvaging to be a legal activity.
My suggestion does not criminalize salvaging at all. It only makes mission invasion/trespassing a suspicious act. Salvaging wrecks would not be criminal or suspicious at all.
If CCP intended for salvagers to have 0 risk in salvaging, they would be immune to attack in all areas while they salvaged. The fact that salvagers can be attacked while salvaging in other risky areas is proof that CCP does not have this intention.
A suspect flag for trespassing just puts the decision to salvage in a mission owner's pocket without permission on par with the decision to salvage in WH, Low Sec or Null Sec space. They are never forced to go into any of these areas to salvage nor are they prevented. And, if the reward (ISK value of salvage) is higher for salvaging in these areas, there is nothing wrong with a higher level of risk.
A suspect flag for trespassing may also create the opportunity for salvaging players to experience the risk/excitement associated with salvaging in high risk/high reward areas like WH, Low and Null without actually exposing them to the full risk of being in those areas....
[quote] |
Goldiiee
Bureau of Astronomical Anomalies
880
|
Posted - 2014.01.27 14:11:00 -
[358] - Quote
Wow go to work come home and the same argument from a new toon.
Requesting a change to allow for the 'Intent to do harm' as a suspect flag is a reasonable change IMO considering the evolution or changes in the game that have adversely effected mission runners and their relative high-sec safety.
As we play (As a community) we get better at everything, this falls to both sides of the board, and a better criminal requires better controls, just like better ISK earners required a nerf to bounties to maintain balance.
This suggestion is simply an overdue balance.
Things that keep me up at night;-á Why do we use a voice communication device to send telegraphs? Moore's Law should state,-áOnce you have paid off the last PC upgrade you will need another. |
Abdul 'aleem
Sumiko Yoshida Corporation
145
|
Posted - 2014.01.27 14:13:00 -
[359] - Quote
Archibald Thistlewaite III wrote:
...
Having people go suspect for warping to a location is a bad idea.
Salvaging is a profession CCP designed so you did not get any flags for doing. Your idea would effect them greatly. I'm hunting a war target, I see them undock and warp to a safe. After scanning them down I warp my fleet to them only to find they were the other Vargur and the whole fleet goes suspect.
Having suspect flags based on warping to a location is a bad idea.
Add some more facts and support and there will be something to discuss. |
Archibald Thistlewaite III
390
|
Posted - 2014.01.27 14:14:00 -
[360] - Quote
Enough with the name calling.
You are still making presumptions about ownership.
You are suggesting making people suspect just for warping to a location. That is a very bad idea.
When I first started I used to salvage mission wrecks. I would scan down a likely ship, warp to the site to find out who was in there and ask them if I could salvage. Under you idea that would give me a suspect flag. That is a bad idea.
Someone scanning for a war target they, they know the guy is in a Maelstrom (insert ship of choice) I find 3 on scan. I pick the wrong one and I go suspect.
Its a very bad idea to have people suspect flagged just for warping to a location. |
|
|
|
|
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 |