Oh, and you can knock off the fallacious argument of "If that were true nothing would have ever changed, ever, nyah!".

Because not only is it enormous hyperbole, but you're being deliberately obtuse, and acting like that somehow means you won the argument instead of Matrix-dodging the point I was making.

If it hasn't changed, CCP is either unwilling or unable to change it.

I don't answer false dichotomies. So don't offer them.

Yeeeah, unfortunately, it's the thing you actually said. So, you know, that's problematic.

Just quoting because it's pretty funny, given the above.

That whooshing sound? That was the point going over your head.

A good example of something that was not working as intended was (however much I may personally disagree) the MTU drone aggro trick.

They fixed that in a week.

Neutral reps have been going on for... how long now? Nearly 2 years since Crimewatch 2.0 was put in? Oh, and they specifically did not make neutral repping a criminal act, but a suspect one. Where before it was in fact an act with zero consequences.

There is abso-*******-lutely ZERO validity to the assertion that, "Hasn't changed = Can't or don't want to change". Again, the ENTIRE landscape shifts pretty regularly.

Once again I offer the MTU drone aggro trick.

They wanted it changed, they had the means, it was changed in a week.

That's pretty clear unless you have cotton stuffed in your ears.

In this instance? Yes, there is.

They have the means, clearly.

"Means" can include time.

In this instance? Yes, there is.

They have the means, clearly.

Not at all.

But instead of just letting out stuff with no meaning at all. Why don't you answer the question?

In what situation does bringing the logi pilot at greater risk, by being in the player corp, provide a larger benefit then the much less risk of an being in an NPC corp?

Still waiting for the answer on the previous question, but I see since you have no basis for anything you say you just let it go and start up something new.

In order for Crimewatch to be consistent, it would need to have similar punishment for similar "crimes".

So ... which one doesnt belong?

"Stealing from a can" "helping in fight by shooting at the enemy of friend" "helping in fight by repping friend".

The inconsistency is in the nature of the actions.

On the "CONCORDOKKEN!" side of the line we have nothing but combat actions: Shooting, disrupting, Ewaring, droning, missiling, etc.

On the "Suspect" side of the line, we have one specific combat action - logi - and theft. Nothing else on the suspect side of the line actually has ANY chance of endangering another player without their taking action.

If I loot a wreck, I go suspect. I do not endanger the victim of the theft, unless he aggresses me.
If I blow up an MTU, I go suspect. I do not endanger the owner of the MTU, unless he aggresses me.

If I remote rep a player, I go suspect, and I'm DEFINITELY endangering the opponent of my target. The nature of the action (and its consequences) has FAR more in common with "red" actions than "yellow" ones.



Er... The suggestion is, "Slightly modify the criteria so that it's Y instead of X." Saying, "But the criteria is X!" isn't actually a response. We know what X is. We started with X, and then suggested it be changed to Y.

There is however much to be said to have recently had the opportunity to change things but deliberately, and with explanation, decided not to.

Mtu's
Duels
Crimewatch

If I haul my friends equipment into a warzone I am seriously endangering his opppnents. Assisting allies is a suspect offense.

Logi is actually the norm.

If the pilot is in the deccing Corp he is at less risk than a neut logi pilot. Did u not know in Corp logi does not go suspect??

Being able to choose when to turn on your suspect flag and when not to, is far less risk than being a war target.

If it wasn't, there wouldn't be anyone hiding in NPC corps.

- The recent implementation of all those systems is relevant.

- The comparison is there. Theres more than one side to what ur trying to argue and yes it can extend to hauling. Doesnt matter if u dnt like it.

- Its an opinion. Just like u thinking the opposite is opinion. If it were possible to implement a system where friends and allies could intervene with offensive mods without any chance of players exploiting it to gank randoms, I sincerely believe it would be attractive. It would work both ways u realise. And the op and u would get ur wish where u can shoot possible logi's, related miners and pos stations.

So if it were possible, whats not to like??

Yes, I suppose if you just want to consider any arbitrary statement as being equally valid simply because someone said it, you certainly have a point.

Back in reality, you still can't conclusively assert that you've definitively determined to know their mind on any arbitrary topic.

I mean, not without looking like an idiot, anyway. I guess there's nothing stopping you from actually making the claim.

And yet it has more consistency with the current system and aligns with ccp's recent and repeated design choices and even ur AND the ops desires.

The only issue is that it can be exploited to attack randoms and only go suspect for it.

So basically, except for the part where it's entirely unworkable at a fundamental level, it's a fantastic idea!

And if it weren't for gravity, I could flap my wings and fly.

Thats exactly what I said. And ur calling me an idiot.

Fact remains, Its clearly the intention of ccp that players can assist their allies in underhanded ways, logi and boosts being two viable ways. Offensive mods not being viable for obvious reasons. But if it could be done, ud all get what u want.

Ah, here we go with the mindreading and bizarre belief that nothing every changes, again. Round and round we go.

U dnt think the recent design decisions are relevant, I think ur being obtuse.

Ur also disgustingly condescending.

Logi and how it works with decs has been around for years and has been a controversial topic. Despite numerous and recent opportunities to make it concordable ccp have decided not to.

It is then in no way bizarre to infer that this would suggest that ccp are happy with how it is. Especially when considering how easy it would be to change like u say. It is in fact bizarre to believe that, despite all this, things are going to change.

U can say ud like change and u can make ur case. But the belief that ccp are fine with the current system because of the above is very much logical and a viable diacussion point for this thread.

Actually, at most all you can refer to that is that their famously soft-touch re: player interaction is still present, and that's a good thing.

And "easy" re: difficulty and "easy" re: labor are entirely different. There wouldn't be any inherent difficulty, that I'm aware of, in making such a change - that doesn't mean it wouldn't be labor intensive, and it doesn't make your mind reading any less fallacious. There is such a thing as "Good enough, for now" in a prioritization queue.

Quick, tell us what they're going to do three patches from now! Would love to start planning out my market orders now.