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
23
|
Posted - 2014.01.23 13:24:00 -
[181] - Quote
Abdul 'aleem wrote:suid0 wrote:what drugs are you on? no troll. lol that's pretty funny.
DR:TL
Take the time to prove your own claims don't make others do it for you. |
Mallak Azaria
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
4421
|
Posted - 2014.01.23 13:26:00 -
[182] - Quote
Abdul 'aleem wrote:Generally, the onus is on the person making the claim to substantiate it, not the person that they are talking to.
Really? He provided a link to content which substantiated his claims. This user won the forums on 18/09/2013, then lost on 18/12/2013. |
suid0
Habitual Euthanasia Pandemic Legion
111
|
Posted - 2014.01.23 13:31:00 -
[183] - Quote
Abdul 'aleem wrote:Abdul 'aleem wrote:suid0 wrote:what drugs are you on? no troll. lol that's pretty funny. DR:TL Take the time to prove your own claims don't make others do it for you.
ROFL, you wouldn't read it anyway.
also you seem lost... this is your thread, it's actually your job to prove to us why your change would benefit everyone.
Note: At the point of this post your idea has exactly.... 0 likes, that really speaks for itself
(We'll now assume any it gets shortly after are your alts)
the entire enemy support fleet is dead except for one interdictor a titan could easily finish off with drones -á--áCommander Ted |
Abdul 'aleem
Sumiko Yoshida Corporation
23
|
Posted - 2014.01.23 13:34:00 -
[184] - Quote
Gawain Edmond wrote:i'll agree that mission runners can shoot people who warp into their missions on the assumption that if you warp into someones mission you're permitted to shoot them too. After all you're asking to be able to commit violence against someones ship it's only fair if they can do it to you too.
Just think of it like making all mission pockets into 0.0 space and concord have decided that deadspace pockets are too difficult to patrol so have decided to let pod pilots patrol them.
p.s. also people who warp into faction warfare sites should be marked up the same way i'm sick of having to lose sec status because some carebear wants to come play with us
This suggestion is just adding a flag for the trespasser at the time that they choose to start warping to the mission pocket.
The criminal system mechanics would remain the same.
If I steal from your can, I can shoot you. Then you can shoot me.
The same would apply for a flag at warp in: the missioner has the immediate opportunity to shoot, if they do you can legally shoot back.
Also the same warning system and exemptions to flagging would apply. |
Abdul 'aleem
Sumiko Yoshida Corporation
23
|
Posted - 2014.01.23 13:38:00 -
[185] - Quote
suid0 wrote:Abdul 'aleem wrote:Abdul 'aleem wrote:suid0 wrote:what drugs are you on? no troll. lol that's pretty funny. DR:TL Take the time to prove your own claims don't make others do it for you. ROFL, you wouldn't read it anyway. also you seem lost... this is your thread, it's actually your job to prove to us why your change would benefit everyone. Note: At the point of this post your idea has exactly.... 0 likes, that really speaks for itself (We'll now assume any it gets shortly after are your alts)
Forum rules sticky... the very top one:
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=6341&find=unread
for you:
Please, read the forum rules, and pay attention to them. If you don't like someone's idea, please remember to post with respect towards fellow players at all times and remain constructive.
Thus a couple ground rules: 1) This is a breeding ground for ideas. If someone has an idea, listen to it. If you don't like it, think about why. Constructive feedback is good. Posting "That's an awful idea," is not constructive.
Are you really saying anything more than "That's an awful idea"? |
Abdul 'aleem
Sumiko Yoshida Corporation
23
|
Posted - 2014.01.23 13:49:00 -
[186] - Quote
Mallak Azaria wrote:Abdul 'aleem wrote:Generally, the onus is on the person making the claim to substantiate it, not the person that they are talking to. Really? He provided a link to content which substantiated his claims.
Yeah I disagree. |
Gawain Edmond
Angry Mustellid
41
|
Posted - 2014.01.23 13:53:00 -
[187] - Quote
Abdul 'aleem wrote:Gawain Edmond wrote:i'll agree that mission runners can shoot people who warp into their missions on the assumption that if you warp into someones mission you're permitted to shoot them too. After all you're asking to be able to commit violence against someones ship it's only fair if they can do it to you too.
Just think of it like making all mission pockets into 0.0 space and concord have decided that deadspace pockets are too difficult to patrol so have decided to let pod pilots patrol them.
p.s. also people who warp into faction warfare sites should be marked up the same way i'm sick of having to lose sec status because some carebear wants to come play with us This suggestion is just adding a flag for the trespasser at the time that they choose to start warping to the mission pocket. The criminal system mechanics would remain the same. If I steal from your can, I can shoot you. Then you can shoot me. The same would apply for a flag at warp in: the missioner has the immediate opportunity to shoot, if they do you can legally shoot back. Also the same warning system and exemptions to flagging would apply.
But that's not fair shooting someone is far more serious than stealing someones stuff. Concord are all happy with people taking revenge, hence why you can explode people for stealing your stuff, but being able to shoot someone for being in a part of space near you isn't a criminal act. If you want the right to shoot someone then you gotta give them the same right it's only fair.
If someone steals from a mission wreck then alpha them, if you're not set up to do that then it's your own fault you failed to protect your stuff the tools are all there for you in the game already. If you choose to blow up the rat that has the loot while they're right next to it and you don't have them locked and you can see they're going to steal your stuff then you deserve to lose it, as I said the tools are in the game to prevent them from stealing your stuff. Oh and the "high probability" of the loot exploding with their ship is 50% which isn't high by any stretch of the imagination.
So once someone has stolen you're stuff from the mission why don't you just go and steal someone elses stuff from their mission? No lies about "i'm not a pirate" it's not their stuff till they get it to a station the same way yours doesn't belong to you till you get it to a station and the same way the part of space you're in isn't yours till you get it in a station which means they can't be trespassing as they're not in your captains quarters (if they were it'd be hacking and they'd get in trouble)
sorry I rambled think i got most of the "." and "," in the right place for it to make sense |
suid0
Habitual Euthanasia Pandemic Legion
111
|
Posted - 2014.01.23 13:59:00 -
[188] - Quote
Abdul 'aleem wrote:Forum rules sticky... the very top one: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=6341&find=unreadfor you: Please, read the forum rules, and pay attention to them. If you don't like someone's idea, please remember to post with respect towards fellow players at all times and remain constructive. Thus a couple ground rules: 1) This is a breeding ground for ideas. If someone has an idea, listen to it. If you don't like it, think about why. Constructive feedback is good. Posting "That's an awful idea," is not constructive. Are you really saying anything more than "That's an awful idea"?
Quote: 5. Trolling is prohibited.
Trolling is a defined as a post that is deliberately designed for the purpose of angering and insulting other players in an attempt to incite retaliation or an emotional response. Posts of this nature are disruptive, often abusive and do not contribute to the sense of community that CCP promote.
Several people have explained quite clearly and politely what their objections are and why. Maybe read and acknowledge these instead of simply disregarding them in a provocative manner?
You even later admitted you didn't actually look at the content I linked to, after first posting that it contained nothing that backed my claims, implying you had.
the entire enemy support fleet is dead except for one interdictor a titan could easily finish off with drones -á--áCommander Ted |
suid0
Habitual Euthanasia Pandemic Legion
111
|
Posted - 2014.01.23 14:03:00 -
[189] - Quote
Abdul 'aleem wrote:Mallak Azaria wrote:Abdul 'aleem wrote:Generally, the onus is on the person making the claim to substantiate it, not the person that they are talking to. Really? He provided a link to content which substantiated his claims. Yeah I disagree.
It's responses like this that provide nothing to the discussion and look as if you're just trying to provoke people. the entire enemy support fleet is dead except for one interdictor a titan could easily finish off with drones -á--áCommander Ted |
Abdul 'aleem
Sumiko Yoshida Corporation
36
|
Posted - 2014.01.23 14:16:00 -
[190] - Quote
suid0 wrote:Abdul 'aleem wrote:Forum rules sticky... the very top one: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=6341&find=unreadfor you: Please, read the forum rules, and pay attention to them. If you don't like someone's idea, please remember to post with respect towards fellow players at all times and remain constructive. Thus a couple ground rules: 1) This is a breeding ground for ideas. If someone has an idea, listen to it. If you don't like it, think about why. Constructive feedback is good. Posting "That's an awful idea," is not constructive. Are you really saying anything more than "That's an awful idea"? Quote: 5. Trolling is prohibited.
Trolling is a defined as a post that is deliberately designed for the purpose of angering and insulting other players in an attempt to incite retaliation or an emotional response. Posts of this nature are disruptive, often abusive and do not contribute to the sense of community that CCP promote.
Several people have explained quite clearly and politely what their objections are and why. Maybe read and acknowledge these instead of simply disregarding them in a provocative manner? You even later admitted you didn't actually look at the content I linked to, after first posting that it contained nothing that backed my claims, implying you had.
Fortunately, my post #150 is there for anyone to read and they can judge for themselves if your interpretation is accurate. |
|
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Hello-There
133
|
Posted - 2014.01.23 14:47:00 -
[191] - Quote
Having skip read the last few posts (I've had a few beers at lunch so I could have misread/not bothered to red...):
Problem: In some very specific instances in COSMOS missions a very high value loot is dropped. The thief is sitting afk in an alt, monitoring the standard missions site. The thief alt jumps in to the mission site and pootles on over to the mission loot drop, aligns, loots and insta-warps out. The thief then ransoms the missioner on the basis that they will lose *lall* future COSMOS missions otherwise.
The problem is that the mission runner cannot shoot the thief until they loot without CONCORD blowing them up for it (I think this mission is still in hi-sec). They literally have a split second to react to insta-blap the thief otherwise they will warp out with the loot to a pre-aligned safe spot. If the missioner cannot afford the ransom or to buy a new loot item they lose all COSMOS missions from that point onwards.
The key point here is that there is literally a split-second where the looter is vulnerable which is extremely minimal risk as the missioner can do nothing until they go suspect. That to me makes this an exploit of the game mechanics, but only because of the unique value of the item in question. In any other mission you can let it reset or just accept the standings loss.
Changing the game mechanics is a non-starter as it requires code change that would impact all sorts of other areas, hence suggesting a simple change to the mission loot location. This principle should apply (in my opinion) to any other COSOMS (and only these) missions with similar loot issues.
Hopefully that is relatively clear :D |
Abdul 'aleem
Sumiko Yoshida Corporation
40
|
Posted - 2014.01.23 14:50:00 -
[192] - Quote
Abdul 'aleem wrote:Riot Girl wrote:Abdul 'aleem wrote:The item is not always on the market, for various reasons. Buy it from the thief. Quote:The issue is that there is little to no counter-play currently available to the missioner. Tornadoes. If a thief can warp in and loot, why can't you just do the same? Why can't you do it with a cloak so you can't be scanned down? I don't know how the mission works, but I'm pretty sure there are plenty of ways to deal with this situation if you use your imagination. Why not just make the thief suspect when they actually begin the crime? PvP is good. Counter-play is good. Why should mission thieves/griefers be so scared of going suspect when they warp in? |
Riot Girl
You'll Cowards Don't Even Smoke Crack
2484
|
Posted - 2014.01.23 15:02:00 -
[193] - Quote
Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote:The problem is that the mission runner cannot shoot the thief until they loot without CONCORD blowing them up for it (I think this mission is still in hi-sec). They literally have a split second to react to insta-blap the thief otherwise they will warp out with the loot to a pre-aligned safe spot. If the missioner cannot afford the ransom or to buy a new loot item they lose all COSMOS missions from that point onwards. Have an interceptor orbiting the NPC @ 500 for looting and tackling.
Oh god. |
Meyr
SiN Corp Black Core Alliance
280
|
Posted - 2014.01.23 15:14:00 -
[194] - Quote
OH. MY. GOD.
Truly, there are no tears like pirate/ganker tears.
What we have here is someone trying to earn a living (let's face it, no one does missions because they're INTERESTING). Someone else plans on interrupting their work and stealing the results. In the process of that theft, they (a) conspire, and (b) trespass into something that, were it not for the mission-runner interacting with an agent, would not otherwise exist.
Points (a) and (b) certainly amount to what, in the real world, would result in your detention and questioning by the police, to say nothing of being arrested, tried, and convicted.
What's been proposed here is a possible method of leveling the playing field, by making an uninvited intrusion into a mission pocket an act that would mark you as a viable target for the mission-runner.
And you guys are crying up a storm! Isn't greater opportunity for PVP what damned near every one of you guys are constantly asking for in these very same forums? Now, you're hiding behind CONCORD because, "Don't make MY fun harder or riskier, CCP, just those lazy, weak, wimpy hisec carebears!"
Personally, I feel that missions like this should spawn in more than one location - meaning that Princess Whatsherbitch can't simply camp one system, looking for a certain type of ship, and easily warp to that target, nearly certain of an easy, fat payday. Have them actually spawn in a system like Poinen or Osmon - that way, if you want to steal the mission loot/reward, you have to EARN it - work your butt off, put in some skull sweat.
Hey, you want to camp the place where the mission is given, note the player and shipname, go to several other BUSY systems looking for that player in local, scan the system, use D-scan to locate a result with a proper name, warp to it, and steal the loot, you've EARNED IT, and the mission-runner will have learned to do simple things, like changing their ship name.
In the meantime, keep on crying, guys.
Oh, by the way - how's that truly intimidating war dec going, Erotica1? |
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
352
|
Posted - 2014.01.23 15:16:00 -
[195] - Quote
It is a bad idea, and won't solve the problem. The problem of skewed cost/risk/reward does exist, and laughably on the pirates side. I will admit that I have not done these missions, but unless the mission itself rewards ISK or item worth 1.5 billion ISK, then the value to the missioner is no where near that mark. If it was, then most would gladly pay the 500 millon, and perhaps even be able to find backers to help fund the ransom. This does not happen, so I am assuming the Reward is more in line with other missions in the game where pirates want to demand 50+ million for a damsel that only pays maybe 2 million. Probably the biggest part of the skewed Cost/Risk/Reward is that this is a one time deal for the missioner with massive repercussions for failure, while the pirate can victimize new missioners in the same mission several times a day as opportunity arises with minimal repercussions should he fail.
I would suggest instead that the mission items be of a sufficient size that pushes the cargo capacity of the ship intended to run the mission. Thus no taking in a frigate to loot something it takes a battleship to get to. This would at least help balance the cost portion, and not give a huge agility edge to the guy that also has 100% of the initiative on his side too. If we are going to make this a race, lets not fill the guy that has everything to lose shoe's with lead bricks too. I would even suggest some of these missions require escorted fleets to complete, with objectives requiring an industrial to cart off.
A look at the aggro mechanics might still be in order too. If that NPC fleet is there to protect that one ship, then an enemy vessel orbiting that ship should get everything that fleet can throw at it, including the kitchen sink. Altering those ships so they can better assist their fleets in defending them by giving them webs and such. In these missions aggro priority should be on anyone actually shooting the protected ship first, and then whoever is closest to the protected ship. NPC fleet manuvers should reflect this as well, with ships trying to maintain optimal positions on their protected ship to defend it rather than optimal position on their current target. Such missions could essentially be two fleets, one designated for attack behavior, the other for guard behavior.
Basically, there is a problem, and the mission runner is in a largely untenable position with the current setup. While the OP's idea is poor because it wont serve its own purpose while negatively impacting others, changes are warrented to address current problems. |
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
356
|
Posted - 2014.01.23 23:29:00 -
[196] - Quote
1: This is an MMORPG. While the pocket may not have existed in real life terms until you the player generated it by having your character accept the mission from an agent, within the context of the game world that area of space always existed and you have simply been hired for a job.
2. Crime may start with motive, but punishment does not start with summary execution. What you are suggesting is the right to outright kill anyone in the area you do not authorize to be there on suspicion of criminal intent.
3. The warning system would be a fine deterrent, except for the legitimate reasons someone may want to be there within the context of the fantasy world of EVE. Thats like saying murder victims deserve their fate because they dared enter New York's Central Park alone at night.
4. You are sadly underinformed and uneducated concerning ownership under the aegis of a government in real life. Anyone has every legal permission to be in whatever portion of space the sovriegnity holding entity grants, and is subject only to the force that the holder can apply. Thats kind of why you have the mission in their space to begin with. |
Abdul 'aleem
Sumiko Yoshida Corporation
45
|
Posted - 2014.01.23 23:46:00 -
[197] - Quote
Mike Voidstar wrote:
2. Crime may start with motive, but punishment does not start with summary execution. What you are suggesting is the right to outright kill anyone in the area you do not authorize to be there on suspicion of criminal intent.
2) if you look at your second comment here, you will see it corrects your own analogy of "summary execution". The suggestion is only for a suspect flag to be triggered, as you correctly acknowledged after that.
edit:
3) no it's like saying, if the thief chooses to warp to another person's mission pocket to steal the mission item, flag them at the time they act on it, instead of giving them Concord protection until they loot and run. |
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
356
|
Posted - 2014.01.24 00:04:00 -
[198] - Quote
Except you cannot determine why they are there until they actually do something. They do get flagged at the appropriate time.
You do not need the right to summarily execute people just because they happen to be in a place you don't like on simple suspicion that they may be intending to do something you don't want to something that you yourself don't have the right too at that time.
You have failed to give any sort of proper reason why you should have the right to shoot people simply for being in the same public space as you are. It all boils down to the point of ownership, and you are simply incorrect in assuming the space is yours just because you were given a location for it. |
Abdul 'aleem
Sumiko Yoshida Corporation
45
|
Posted - 2014.01.24 00:10:00 -
[199] - Quote
Mike Voidstar wrote:Except you cannot determine why they are there until they actually do something. They do get flagged at the appropriate time.
You do not need the right to summarily execute people just because they happen to be in a place you don't like on simple suspicion that they may be intending to do something you don't want to something that you yourself don't have the right too at that time.
You have failed to give any sort of proper reason why you should have the right to shoot people simply for being in the same public space as you are. It all boils down to the point of ownership, and you are simply incorrect in assuming the space is yours just because you were given a location for it.
Lots of reasons have been posted by myself and others who support the idea in this thread and in the original Missions & Complexes thread.
The mission pockets are not public space. If they were, the public would be able to access them without the owner being involved.
For instance: if you can tell me how I can publicly access a mission site of someone who accepts a mission and never undocks, I will totally agree that they are public spaces.
Otherwise, I understand your opinion that they are public spaces. But, I am sorry, you are wrong. |
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
356
|
Posted - 2014.01.24 00:21:00 -
[200] - Quote
Your entire premise for why the space should not be considered public ignores the fact that this is an RPG game, and carries a certain amount of imagination.
There is an assumed NPC population frequenting these locations on legitimate business all the time. The area is assumed to be open to the public at large. The mechanic of spawning a pocket is a fabrication to forward the storyline that something important happened at that otherwise mundane place at that particular time.
You are not creating a space, you are creating a storyline event. The space is the setting for that encounter---you don't own the stage, just your part in that particular play.
Your argument would be true only if we viewed the game in terms of pixels and data under our control, but that's now how the game world is intended to be viewed. If that were the case there would not be all this text you are supposed to be reading about the mission objectives and reasons for you to be heading to where you are going and such.
For your argument to work, you need to have a valid, in game reason that ownership of that portion of space has transferred to you during the course of the events being portrayed. You don't have that... instead you have some metagame "This pocket didn't exist until I willed it so" BS that only applies if the game was meant to be 100% out of character.
If you want to own space and shoot anyone that comes near you, it so happens that this is a game where you can make that happen. It also happens that the place for that sort of thing isn't in High Sec space... try one of the other 3 areas. |
|
Abdul 'aleem
Sumiko Yoshida Corporation
45
|
Posted - 2014.01.24 00:27:00 -
[201] - Quote
Please, if the mission sites are public, just tell me how I can warp to another player's mission pocket if they draw the mission and never undock.
If the site is intended for the public and I have a right to be there, tell me how to do it.
Or, just admit that you are wrong. |
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
356
|
Posted - 2014.01.24 00:44:00 -
[202] - Quote
You know, I initially came into this thread to support your issue, just not your solution. That is done now, and you are actually slowing pushing my carebearish tendencies into actively hunting you down in game and shooting you just for being an annoying individual. Probably after I practice my probing skills finding you in a mission pocket just for the occasion. Every single time you regurgitate the assertion that you own the space due to the mechanics of accessing it you reveal yourself to be exactly the sort of whining incompetent that the PvP mouthbreathers claim.
Once again... if you want to claim that space as your own, provide a logical, in game and storyline consistent reason why the current owners listed at the top left of the screen gave it and everything in it to you to do with as you please. Arguing game mechanics while claiming storyline rights simply will not work. You cannot take the RP out of RPG.
While I, nor any other Player, can access the mission area, they are hubs of NPC activity used by the vast majority of the EVE universe on a daily basis. EVE is much more than a few thousand pod pilots ruling the spaceways. That sort of thing is what an RPG is all about.
Your argument is ignoring the RP part of MMORPG, and doing its best to forget the MM part as well. There is a difference between the out of character mechanics of game play, and the in game storyline that is supposed to be the heart of the game. PVE content is all about the RP in RPG.
You are wrong because you are trying to force out of game logic on in game storyline events. You do not, never have, nor ever will own that space. If you want to own space go forth into null sec and claim a patch of it. That is the nature of this game, and claiming otherwise due to the mechanics of how an encounter works will get you nowhere. |
Abdul 'aleem
Sumiko Yoshida Corporation
45
|
Posted - 2014.01.24 00:50:00 -
[203] - Quote
Mike Voidstar wrote:You know, I initially came into this thread to support your issue, just not your solution. That is done now, and you are actually slowing pushing my carebearish tendencies into actively hunting you down in game and shooting you just for being an annoying individual. Probably after I practice my probing skills finding you in a mission pocket just for the occasion. Every single time you regurgitate the assertion that you own the space due to the mechanics of accessing it you reveal yourself to be exactly the sort of whining incompetent that the PvP mouthbreathers claim.
Once again... if you want to claim that space as your own, provide a logical, in game and storyline consistent reason why the current owners listed at the top left of the screen gave it and everything in it to you to do with as you please. Arguing game mechanics while claiming storyline rights simply will not work. You cannot take the RP out of RPG.
While I, nor any other Player, can access the mission area, they are hubs of NPC activity used by the vast majority of the EVE universe on a daily basis. EVE is much more than a few thousand pod pilots ruling the spaceways. That sort of thing is what an RPG is all about.
Your argument is ignoring the RP part of MMORPG, and doing its best to forget the MM part as well. There is a difference between the out of character mechanics of game play, and the in game storyline that is supposed to be the heart of the game. PVE content is all about the RP in RPG.
You are wrong because you are trying to force out of game logic on in game storyline events. You do not, never have, nor ever will own that space. If you want to own space go forth into null sec and claim a patch of it. That is the nature of this game, and claiming otherwise due to the mechanics of how an encounter works will get you nowhere.
I think that you and I and everyone knows that there is no way to access a missioner's mission pocket if they draw a mission and never undock. That means that they are definitely not owned by the public.
No troll. No personal attack. No judgement. You are just wrong.
And again, the suggestion is that because of this fact, we make it illegal to warp to a missioner's pocket without a valid and legal reason (fleet member, WT, kill rights, etc)
It's just a suspect flag nothing more or less.
I don't think this is going to blow up anyone's gaming experience or their ability to RP. |
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
356
|
Posted - 2014.01.24 00:57:00 -
[204] - Quote
There is a difference between having the right to do something, and the ability. You are ignoring that.
Everyone has the right to access that space. Only the mission owner has the ability, because that space is the setting for an event in that characters story. You only own your own actions and your own ship--- the setting is part of the world and is owned by everyone.
Your argument is false because it is based on a false premise using unrelated facts to support a strawman conclusion.
I am now out of troll snacks, enjoy tilting at this particular windmill. |
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
356
|
Posted - 2014.01.24 00:57:00 -
[205] - Quote
There is a difference between having the right to do something, and the ability. You are ignoring that.
Everyone has the right to access that space. Only the mission owner has the ability, because that space is the setting for an event in that characters story. You only own your own actions and your own ship--- the setting is part of the world and is owned by everyone.
Your argument is false because it is based on a false premise using unrelated facts to support a strawman conclusion.
*Snip* Please refrain from personal attacks. ISD Ezwal |
Abdul 'aleem
Sumiko Yoshida Corporation
45
|
Posted - 2014.01.24 01:00:00 -
[206] - Quote
Mike Voidstar wrote:There is a difference between having the right to do something, and the ability. You are ignoring that.
Everyone has the right to access that space. Only the mission owner has the ability, because that space is the setting for an event in that characters story. You only own your own actions and your own ship--- the setting is part of the world and is owned by everyone.
Your argument is false because it is based on a false premise using unrelated facts to support a strawman conclusion.
*Snip* Please refrain from personal attacks. ISD Ezwal
Peace man o7
Edit: my intention is our exchanges was only to point out all of the evidence that supports the suggestion for CCP to allow invaders to be suspect flagged for trespassing into the missioner's mission pocket.
We can agree to disagree and I am sorry if you felt in any way that it was a personal attack on you. I apologize if it came across that way.
Also, I know it may not convince you, but Daichi Yamato adds the following proof to support the fact the missioner is the rightful owner of the mission pocket created for him by his agent:
Daichi Yamato wrote:
if anything makes a mission belong to the mission acceptor its the fact that no matter who kills the NPC's the wrecks belong to the mission acceptor and his fleet. THAT god awful mechanic is the strongest argument that mission space is owned.
|
Abdul 'aleem
Sumiko Yoshida Corporation
45
|
Posted - 2014.01.24 01:00:00 -
[207] - Quote
Mike Voidstar wrote:There is a difference between having the right to do something, and the ability. You are ignoring that.
Everyone has the right to access that space. Only the mission owner has the ability, because that space is the setting for an event in that characters story. You only own your own actions and your own ship--- the setting is part of the world and is owned by everyone.
Your argument is false because it is based on a false premise using unrelated facts to support a strawman conclusion.
I am now out of troll snacks, enjoy tilting at this particular windmill.
Peace man o7
Edit: my intention is our exchanges was only to point out all of the evidence that supports the suggestion for CCP to allow invaders to be suspect flagged for trespassing into the missioner's mission pocket.
We can agree to disagree and I am sorry if you felt in any way that it was a personal attack on you. I apologize if it came across that way.
Also, I know it may not convince you, but Daichi Yamato adds the following proof to support the fact the missioner is the rightful owner of the mission pocket created for him by his agent:
Daichi Yamato wrote:
if anything makes a mission belong to the mission acceptor its the fact that no matter who kills the NPC's the wrecks belong to the mission acceptor and his fleet. THAT god awful mechanic is the strongest argument that mission space is owned.
|
Erotica 1
Krypteia Operations CODE.
3303
|
Posted - 2014.01.24 01:02:00 -
[208] - Quote
Hunter Arngrahm wrote:suid0 wrote:Same deal, people will accidentally flag suspect and get killed when they were legitimately helping a friend out. How you ask? they're in fleet so they wont flag? scenario: P2 joins P1's fleet and is in the mission with them, P2 has a disconnect and logs back in, now P2 gets to warp to P1's mission pocket possibly before they can rejoin fleet and goes suspect, it's an e-warp and cannot be cancelled.
If you aren't prepared to think outside the box at what negative or unexpected effects your suggestion will have and get tunnel vision thinking only of your specific problem you wish to solve you can't really expect people to support or agree with your idea.
This is why I like the idea of making it not a suspect flag, but an extremely temporary kill right that you can activate. Make it anywhere between 10 to 25 minutes before it expires, and make it act like any other kill rights. You can sell it, make it public, activate it. It's your choice what to do with it, and by default, no harm is done to the person. I also feel it should be given and/or refreshed on the activation of an acceleration gate, rather than simply warping to the mission pocket. It gives the option for a warning message to pop up when you attempt to activate the gate (Which could be toggled) so the pirate and/or innocent have a chance to avoid making a mistake. Not to mention it allows for salvagers to scan down the site and salvage/loot after you've completed the mission without enduring any potential flags, as they won't need to use any gates.
I like that idea, with one modification. Everyone doing missions for the faction you are attacking should be able to buy or be given a killright on you. It would have similarities with faction warfare, but be more limited- but great fun for missioners. See Bio for isk doubling rules. If you didn't read bio, chances are you funded those who did. |
Abdul 'aleem
Sumiko Yoshida Corporation
45
|
Posted - 2014.01.24 02:07:00 -
[209] - Quote
Erotica 1 wrote: I like that idea, with one modification. Everyone doing missions for the faction you are attacking should be able to buy or be given a killright on you. It would have similarities with faction warfare, but be more limited- but great fun for missioners.
The advantage of suspect flag is that it opens counter-play up globally.
But, if the most important thing is to keep the salvagers from getting a flag from warping to a missioner's pocket illegally, killright would have to do.
Unless it is CCP policy that salvagers are a protected class, I honestly do not see any problem with them also being flagged at warp in. |
Riot Girl
You'll Cowards Don't Even Smoke Crack
2497
|
Posted - 2014.01.24 02:52:00 -
[210] - Quote
Abdul 'aleem wrote:I think that you and I and everyone knows that there is no way to access a missioner's mission pocket if they draw a mission and never undock. That means that they are definitely not owned by the public.
No troll. No personal attack. No judgement. You are just wrong. They're owned by whoever has the power to claim ownership and enforce it. I can claim ownership of every mission site and enforce my claim by hiring an army of minions to suicide gank every mission runner who trespasses on one of MY mission sites. It's MY site, not yours. 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 |