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
145
|
Posted - 2014.01.27 14:16:00 -
[361] - Quote
Goldiiee wrote: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.
Exactly.
I think that Princess Achaja must be financing like 100 accounts with all the easy ISK he/she is getting from exploiting this broken game mechanic. |
Archibald Thistlewaite III
390
|
Posted - 2014.01.27 14:17:00 -
[362] - Quote
Abdul 'aleem wrote: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.
NEW!
CCP Dropbear: GÇ£One problematic thing about GÇ£genericGÇ¥ missions is how they effectively isolate the mission-runner from other players and provide few avenues for social interaction. If youGÇÖre wondering why sometimes epics send players to nullsec, lowsec, exploration sitesGǪwell, this is a big part of the reason why.GÇ¥
Kahega Amelden: GÇ£DonGÇÖt worry, CCP. We here at Suddenly NinjasGäó are working hard to add social interaction to generic missions.GÇ¥
CCP Dropbear: GÇ£And we love you (and others like you) for it! In some weird and wonderful way, groups like yours operate as flag bearers for the full EVE experience, and we wouldnGÇÖt want to change, or get in the way of that.
GÇ£Also, lol.GÇ¥
CCP Mitnal: GǣOur policy on this is extremely clearGǪSalvaging is a mini-profession within EVE and does not constitute stealingGǥ From here
GM Faolchu: GÇ£This is an intended game mechanic and is in no way an exploitGÇ¥
Senior GM Ytterbium: GǣPlayers are still completely free to salvage other pilot wrecks at willGǪand doing so is not considered as an exploitGǥ
CCP Prism X: GÇ£Before the salvage enters those containers [your cargo-hold/hanger] it is not considered your stuff by the server code. Hence itGÇÖs not stealing.GÇ¥
|
Abdul 'aleem
Sumiko Yoshida Corporation
145
|
Posted - 2014.01.27 14:18:00 -
[363] - Quote
Archibald Thistlewaite III wrote: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.
You should really read the thread or at least the original post.
|
Archibald Thistlewaite III
390
|
Posted - 2014.01.27 14:18:00 -
[364] - Quote
Goldiiee wrote: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.
Do you honestly believe warping to a location should give you a suspect flag?
|
Abdul 'aleem
Sumiko Yoshida Corporation
145
|
Posted - 2014.01.27 14:19:00 -
[365] - Quote
Archibald Thistlewaite III wrote:Goldiiee wrote: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. Do you honestly believe warping to a location should give you a suspect flag?
Read the original post it is clearly stated there.
Fail troll is fail.
|
Goldiiee
Bureau of Astronomical Anomalies
880
|
Posted - 2014.01.27 14:20:00 -
[366] - Quote
The presumption of ownership is based on all the given facts, if CCP intended something other than ownership of the site then wrecks would all be blue, and rats would be available on D-scan as soon as the mission is accepted (For missions with prespawned rats). So based on that the change in Rules of Engagement are simple and justified.
If your scanning down a War target and not using a scout to verify.. well just NO.
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. |
Archibald Thistlewaite III
390
|
Posted - 2014.01.27 14:20:00 -
[367] - Quote
Abdul 'aleem wrote:Archibald Thistlewaite III wrote: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. You should really read the thread or at least the original post.
I have. Just so you understand The other 2 Maelstroms that are missioning are not war targets. So if I warp to them I will become a suspect under your idea.
Try reading your idea yourself you seem confused about what you are suggesting. |
Riot Girl
You'll Cowards Don't Even Smoke Crack
2525
|
Posted - 2014.01.27 14:21:00 -
[368] - Quote
The owner of a POS can be war decced so anyone can claim ownership of that space. Oh god. |
Abdul 'aleem
Sumiko Yoshida Corporation
145
|
Posted - 2014.01.27 14:21:00 -
[369] - Quote
Archibald Thistlewaite III wrote:Abdul 'aleem wrote:Archibald Thistlewaite III wrote: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. You should really read the thread or at least the original post. I have. Just so you understand The other 2 Maelstroms that are missioning are not war targets. So if I warp to them I will become a suspect under your idea. Try reading your idea yourself you seem confused about what you are suggesting.
No you are spreading false information deliberately to thread crap. |
Silvetica Dian
Manson Family Advent of Fate
652
|
Posted - 2014.01.27 14:22:00 -
[370] - Quote
Riot Girl wrote:Why should he get a criminal flag when he hasn't committed a crime? Why should mission runners be allowed to bypass core mechanics that the rest of us are forced to abide by?
Well as these mission sites seem to be full of pirates that the invincible concord has trouble seeing into maybe all deadspace pockets should grant everyone on grid a limited engagement timer with every one else on grid? including fleet mates. now we have the ability to shoot potential thieves. to shoot neutral logi and also to kill out of corp fleet mates to see if they drop any nice faction /deadspace modules. now OP's problem is solved. the neutral logi issue is addressed and people have more ways to kill mission runners. everyone is now happy and we can end the thread. you are all very welcome. Money at its root is a form of rationing. When the richest 85 people have as much wealth as the poorest 3.5 billion (50% of humanity) it is clear where the source of poverty is. http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jan/20/trickle-down-economics-broken-promise-richest-85 |
|
Archibald Thistlewaite III
390
|
Posted - 2014.01.27 14:23:00 -
[371] - Quote
Goldiiee wrote:The presumption of ownership is based on all the given facts, if CCP intended something other than ownership of the site then wrecks would all be blue, and rats would be available on D-scan as soon as the mission is accepted (For missions with prespawned rats). So based on that the change in Rules of Engagement are simple and justified.
If your scanning down a War target and not using a scout to verify.. well just NO.
Your wrong, the location in space is always there. Its the rats/items/structures that are spawned for you.
So a scout has to go suspect? Same thing.
As I said before, I do think the whole mission thief gameplay needs balancing. This is not the way.
Giving people suspect flags for warping to a location is a very bad idea. |
Archibald Thistlewaite III
390
|
Posted - 2014.01.27 14:24:00 -
[372] - Quote
Abdul 'aleem wrote:Archibald Thistlewaite III wrote:Abdul 'aleem wrote:Archibald Thistlewaite III wrote: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. You should really read the thread or at least the original post. I have. Just so you understand The other 2 Maelstroms that are missioning are not war targets. So if I warp to them I will become a suspect under your idea. Try reading your idea yourself you seem confused about what you are suggesting. No you are spreading false information deliberately to thread crap.
Yet you won't acknowledge the very real problem with your idea.
|
Goldiiee
Bureau of Astronomical Anomalies
881
|
Posted - 2014.01.27 14:31:00 -
[373] - Quote
Archibald Thistlewaite III wrote:
Do you honestly believe warping to a location should give you a suspect flag?
Yeah I justified my position before I went to work, about 50 comments ago.
Intent; Scanning down a ship in a site is fine, warping to that site to do anything other than help clear the room is an Intent to interfere with the operation of the Mission runner. So your intent is not helpful (If it was helpfull you would ask if anyone needs help and get a fleet invite) then your intent is to steal, gank, or get aggression to overwhelm and take a bling wreck. None of these intents are good so a suspect flag for your intent is warranted.
A simple warning when hitting warp of 'You are about to enter a space designated as combat in progress your status will be changed to Suspect in 5, 4, 3, 2, 1' Simple enough to avoid and nothing new for the current mission invader as the going suspect thing is the whole Intent anyways. The problem I see anyone having with the idea is that they don't want to be 'suspect' till they choose a time that makes it impossible for the Mission runner to do anything about it. But as soon as you decided to warp to a space uninvited and ignored the warning you agreed that you are ok with being shot at, and the risk is worth the reward.
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. |
Archibald Thistlewaite III
390
|
Posted - 2014.01.27 14:43:00 -
[374] - Quote
Goldiiee wrote:Archibald Thistlewaite III wrote:
Yet you won't acknowledge the very real problem with your idea.
You might be overthinking it, By design the mission location is given to the mission owner, so that location can be access only by him/her, till he/she arrives it is invisible to the entire world of EVE. So it is not that difficult to call it temporarily assigned space to xxx, and only 'fleet invited' entry will not net you a Suspect flag. I can se this adding content, especially for things like duels, you can finally have a place to fight and the neutral RR's are suspect immediately rather than only after you get the cowardly fracker to 10% armour.
You too seem to be confusing mission location with mission items/structures. The location in space is always there, its the structures/items/rats and acceleration gates that are spawned. |
Goldiiee
Bureau of Astronomical Anomalies
881
|
Posted - 2014.01.27 14:43:00 -
[375] - Quote
Bertrand Butler wrote:In the end though, I think the argument should be pretty simple. The way these missions are set, together with the game mechanics at play provide the ground for a lot of user generated content that is both desirable and interesting. Loot ninjas, gankers and market traders are not gaming the system but adapting to the mechanics in place for both personal and communal benefit. This results in content that adds an additional level of complexity to the mundane base those missions have, and also provides a ground for social interaction and player innovation.
Instead of trying to change the mechanics at hand - or simply whining, missioners have the option to adapt and provide more content, as well as become more social and involved to pursue their goals. Defense pickets, ganking squads, drop operations, EWAR and logistic neutral corps, local white mercenaries, bait & switch, intel channels, there is no limit. This is not a single player game, use that to your advantage.
If #effort# is the problem though, I think you never deserved that loot anyway... But isn't that forcing the game you play on others. What if the only thing they want to do is pay their subscription fee and get a few minutes destroying red dots, are you telling them Socialize or GTFO. Eventually everyone in EVE makes friends and those friends need help, ISK, defence or entertainment forcing people to make friend does not make the game better for everyone, just ask a AWOX victim if friends in EVE are a good thing.
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 14:50:00 -
[376] - Quote
Archibald Thistlewaite III wrote:
There is also the issue of war targets hiding in mission sites. They use an alt to start a mission, fleet up the at war main and stay in the mission. Anyone who tries to find them ends up going suspect because the alt 'owns' the site.
Nope. They would get the warning also before any suspect flag was applied. |
Archibald Thistlewaite III
390
|
Posted - 2014.01.27 14:54:00 -
[377] - Quote
Abdul 'aleem wrote:Archibald Thistlewaite III wrote:
There is also the issue of war targets hiding in mission sites. They use an alt to start a mission, fleet up the at war main and stay in the mission. Anyone who tries to find them ends up going suspect because the alt 'owns' the site.
Nope. They would get the warning also before any suspect flag was applied.
Yes, they would have to go suspect to warp to the war target. Or chose not to warp to the war target which means he is safe and avoiding the war.
Giving suspect flags to people just from warping to a location is a very bad idea. |
Abdul 'aleem
Sumiko Yoshida Corporation
145
|
Posted - 2014.01.27 14:55:00 -
[378] - Quote
Archibald Thistlewaite III wrote:Ok. That answers the problem of warping to the wrong target when hunting for a war target. It still steps on the toes of salvagers. Post 262 if it doesn't link correctly You want to give players a suspect flag for 'doing nothing wrong'.
re-posted for clarity (again):
Abdul 'aleem wrote:edited and reposted for clarity: This 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. But, choosing to invade the missioner's site without permission to get that salvage would be a "suspcious act" and you would be flagged if you choose to do it (again without permission). 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. 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. If the salvager chooses to enter these areas or invade a mission owner's space because the reward (ISK value of salvage) is higher, there is nothing wrong with it carrying a slightly higher level of risk. In the end, the innocent salvager will only need to contact the missioner to get permission to salvage the site. The salvage thief/griefer gets the flag. If the site is empty/vacant/abandoned, the risk to any of them is almost zero. An unintended bonus of adding a suspect flag for trespassing may be that it creates 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.... Karynn Denton wrote:Abdul 'aleem wrote:If you have scanned a missioner's pocket and chosen to warp to them without a valid legal reason, you have started that criminal act. I'm going into the pocket for the valid and legal reason of salvaging wrecks. This isn't a criminal act. Your suggestion would make it so, which goes against what CCP have already stated on salvaging. You have committed what is defined in RL as "trespassing" and it is a crime because you did so without the owner's permission. For clarity: IRL you cannot legally go into my house without permission to get a drink of water, even though getting a drink of water is legal. In-game terms: salvaging is legal and remains so... choosing to trespass/invade a missioner's pocket without permission is suspicious. I am asking that CCP correctly identify the act of trespassing/invasion into a mission owner's space as a suspicious act and generate the appropriate suspect flag. Sorry for confusing you by crossing RL terms and game terms. TLDR Salvaging is and always will be a legal act. The chosen locations will carry risk. If a suspect flag is generated for tespassing/mission invasion, choosing a missioner's space as the location for salvaging would just have the same risk as choosing to salvage in any other area with a higher risk/reward equation (WH, Low, Null). |
Abdul 'aleem
Sumiko Yoshida Corporation
145
|
Posted - 2014.01.27 14:57:00 -
[379] - Quote
Archibald Thistlewaite III wrote:Abdul 'aleem wrote:Archibald Thistlewaite III wrote:
There is also the issue of war targets hiding in mission sites. They use an alt to start a mission, fleet up the at war main and stay in the mission. Anyone who tries to find them ends up going suspect because the alt 'owns' the site.
Nope. They would get the warning also before any suspect flag was applied. Yes, they would have to go suspect to warp to the war target. Or chose not to warp to the war target which means he is safe and avoiding the war. Giving suspect flags to people just from warping to a location is a very bad idea.
This is covered in the original post.
And, I agree* giving suspect flags to people for mission invasion is a very bad idea. (if you are a ganker/griefer/"pirate" or thief*) |
Archibald Thistlewaite III
391
|
Posted - 2014.01.27 14:58:00 -
[380] - Quote
Your basing you defence of salvagers going suspect on a false assumption of ownership.
CCP own words state salvagers are doing nothing wrong and you want to flag them suspect. |
|
Bertrand Butler
Cras es Noster
147
|
Posted - 2014.01.27 14:59:00 -
[381] - Quote
Goldiiee wrote: But isn't that forcing the game you play on others. What if the only thing they want to do is pay their subscription fee and get a few minutes destroying red dots, are you telling them Socialize or GTFO. Eventually everyone in EVE makes friends and those friends need help, ISK, defence or entertainment forcing people to make friend does not make the game better for everyone, just ask a AWOX victim if friends in EVE are a good thing.
Any and every mechanic that favors or rewards social isolation in a massive and multi-layered multi-player game is an exercise in futility. This is not a matter of "forcing my playstyle on you", its just a mentality problem stemming from a bad tutorial and legacy mechanics that stifle interaction.
If you want me to be blunt, the answer is pretty simple. Adapt or GTFO. Everyone else does, and their pets too. |
Archibald Thistlewaite III
391
|
Posted - 2014.01.27 14:59:00 -
[382] - Quote
Abdul 'aleem wrote:Archibald Thistlewaite III wrote:Abdul 'aleem wrote:Archibald Thistlewaite III wrote:
There is also the issue of war targets hiding in mission sites. They use an alt to start a mission, fleet up the at war main and stay in the mission. Anyone who tries to find them ends up going suspect because the alt 'owns' the site.
Nope. They would get the warning also before any suspect flag was applied. Yes, they would have to go suspect to warp to the war target. Or chose not to warp to the war target which means he is safe and avoiding the war. Giving suspect flags to people just from warping to a location is a very bad idea. This is covered in the original post. And, I agree* giving suspect flags to people for mission invasion is a very bad idea. (if you are a ganker/griefer/"pirate" or thief*)
No its not. The alt is not at war and the main, who is at war is hiding in the alts mission. Under your idea they would have to go suspect in order to catch the war target.
Unless you are suggesting being involved in any war overrides the suspect flag. That would make the idea even sillier.
Or is it, when you initiate warp the server checks for war targets at the mission site? |
Abdul 'aleem
Sumiko Yoshida Corporation
145
|
Posted - 2014.01.27 15:01:00 -
[383] - Quote
Bertrand Butler wrote:Goldiiee wrote: But isn't that forcing the game you play on others. What if the only thing they want to do is pay their subscription fee and get a few minutes destroying red dots, are you telling them Socialize or GTFO. Eventually everyone in EVE makes friends and those friends need help, ISK, defence or entertainment forcing people to make friend does not make the game better for everyone, just ask a AWOX victim if friends in EVE are a good thing.
Any and every mechanic that favors or rewards social isolation in a massive and multi-layered multi-player game is an exercise in futility. This is not a matter of "forcing my playstyle on you", its just a mentality problem stemming from a bad tutorial and legacy mechanics that stifle interaction. If you want me to be blunt, the answer is pretty simple. Adapt or Perish. Everyone else does.
wow you sound "piratey."
Are you scared of a suspect flag for mission invasion because you might get shot too? |
Abdul 'aleem
Sumiko Yoshida Corporation
145
|
Posted - 2014.01.27 15:03:00 -
[384] - Quote
Archibald Thistlewaite III wrote:Abdul 'aleem wrote:Archibald Thistlewaite III wrote:Abdul 'aleem wrote:Archibald Thistlewaite III wrote:
There is also the issue of war targets hiding in mission sites. They use an alt to start a mission, fleet up the at war main and stay in the mission. Anyone who tries to find them ends up going suspect because the alt 'owns' the site.
Nope. They would get the warning also before any suspect flag was applied. Yes, they would have to go suspect to warp to the war target. Or chose not to warp to the war target which means he is safe and avoiding the war. Giving suspect flags to people just from warping to a location is a very bad idea. This is covered in the original post. And, I agree* giving suspect flags to people for mission invasion is a very bad idea. (if you are a ganker/griefer/"pirate" or thief*) No its not. The alt is not at war and the main, who is at war is hiding in the alts mission. Under your idea they would have to go suspect in order to catch the war target.
read the thread
I'll help you a bit:
the idea only treats the mission pocket as similar to other risky space for salvagers. The salvage is legal but the locationis risky.
Your WT situation would be on par with choosing to chase a WT into any other risky space. |
Archibald Thistlewaite III
391
|
Posted - 2014.01.27 15:04:00 -
[385] - Quote
Abdul 'aleem wrote:
read the thread
I have I suggest you do too. You seem confused by your own idea. |
Abdul 'aleem
Sumiko Yoshida Corporation
145
|
Posted - 2014.01.27 15:06:00 -
[386] - Quote
Archibald Thistlewaite III wrote:Abdul 'aleem wrote:
read the thread
I have I suggest you do too. You seem confused by your own idea.
I'll help you a bit:
the idea only treats the mission pocket as similar to other risky space for salvagers. The salvage is legal but the location is risky.
Your WT situation would be on par with choosing to chase a WT into any other risky space. |
Archibald Thistlewaite III
391
|
Posted - 2014.01.27 15:09:00 -
[387] - Quote
Abdul 'aleem wrote:Archibald Thistlewaite III wrote:Abdul 'aleem wrote:
read the thread
I have I suggest you do too. You seem confused by your own idea. I'll help you a bit: the idea only treats the mission pocket as similar to other risky space for salvagers. The salvage is legal but the location is risky. Your WT situation would be on par with choosing to chase a WT into any other risky space.
On that basis we should make all mission runners go suspect as soon as they undock. After all its just the same as mission running in other risky space.
See how daft that would be.
Edit- and back to insults. seriously?? |
Abdul 'aleem
Sumiko Yoshida Corporation
145
|
Posted - 2014.01.27 15:10:00 -
[388] - Quote
Archibald Thistlewaite III wrote:
On that basis we should make all mission runners go suspect as soon as they undock. After all its just the same as mission running in other risky space.
See how daft that would be.
Edit- and back to insults. seriously??
Yeah anyone who thinks that that is the suggestion is indeed daft. I totally agree. |
Archibald Thistlewaite III
391
|
Posted - 2014.01.27 15:14:00 -
[389] - Quote
Archibald Thistlewaite III wrote:Abdul 'aleem wrote:Archibald Thistlewaite III wrote: I have I suggest you do too. You seem confused by your own idea.
I'll help you a bit: the idea only treats the mission pocket as similar to other risky space for salvagers. The salvage is legal but the location is risky. Your WT situation would be on par with choosing to chase a WT into any other risky space. On that basis we should make all mission runners go suspect as soon as they undock. After all its just the same as mission running in other risky space. See how daft that would be. Edit- and back to insults. seriously??
Abdul 'aleem wrote:Archibald Thistlewaite III wrote:On that basis we should make all mission runners go suspect as soon as they undock. After all its just the same as mission running in other risky space.
See how daft that would be.
Edit- and back to insults. seriously?? Yeah anyone who thinks that that is the suggestion is indeed daft. I totally agree.
and now quoting out of context.
If you are not interested in discussing the pros and cons of your idea just say so. |
Bertrand Butler
Cras es Noster
147
|
Posted - 2014.01.27 15:15:00 -
[390] - Quote
Abdul 'aleem wrote:
wow you sound "piratey."
Are you scared of a suspect flag for mission invasion because you might get shot too?
How would that make me scared? If you shoot me It would give me the opportunity to solo gun you down without CONCORD interference, and without needing a couple of friends/alts for suicide ganking.
I am talking about a mentality problem here. |
|
|
|
|
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 |