Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Your claim is that there many new options available to the mission. I have read the thread, and I see only one option, and that one not really viable for missioners unless they want to explode.

Please, educate me. One single option not currently available other than preemtive attack without CONCORD intervention.

You have made claims, I just want to see them substanciated, if at all possible.

Right. You dont have a single viable benefit.

Thanks for confirming.

I am asking you for an example of a direct, single, viable alternative not currently available other than preemtive attack. You claim there are many. I have checked and rechecked the thread and see only that one.

No one has given another alternative than preemtive attack. Please, educate me. You claim there are many so this should be simple.

Simply saying there are others without substanciating the claim offers nothing to discuss. I am willing to be convinced, if you can back up your claims in some way.

Pretty sure he's saying that if you can provide an example other than preemptive strike, he may concede the fact that said example exists and you're not just blowing wind out your ass.

Alright, tell you what, now I'm asking the same question. What options, other than preemptive strike, are made available to the mission runner as a result of what you are proposing?

I am just trying to engage you in actual discussion of your idea. I still maintain it's a bad one for many reasons, and the fact that it does not do what it claims to do is just one.

You have made a simple claim: That It opens *many* new options for a missioner in dealing with "griefers". I disagree, and see only the singular new option of preemptive attack, which I do not see as a viable alternative as it is almost certain death to attack a PvP ready griefer in a missioning ship. Even if such an option was viable under ordinary circumstances, it's still only one option, and the claim is many.

Fire away. Let's hear about these new viable alternatives opened up by your idea. I understand that this is difficult, so take your time. Just repeating over and over again that they exist does not make it so... actually discuss your idea. You are big on word count, put some substance in it.

Wow, you know how to keep a thread going!

As long as the safeties continue to work, I don't have a problem with your suggestion. The only way this would function, is if the "suspect flag" was granted the moment your ship attempted to warp into the mission. A green safety would simply prevent the warp. If the flag doesn't occur until you land, you could be kicked out of fleet prior to landing and then given a suspect flag in a manner the safety setting couldn't prevent, which would be very problematic.

Now, I want to address your bullshit intro paragraph:



1.) In 99% of the missions undertaken in game, the penalties for having your mission item stolen are small to negligible, and certainly do NOT result in "huge penalties". What bullshit spin is this! You should work for Fox or CNN spewing crap like that!

2.) Scanning, camping, and the suspect flag for stealing loot are not minor activities that take no time. Your belittling of the dedication needed to ruin your day is just more bullshit spin.

3.) A person is currently allowed to enter a mission pocket, where they are allowed to salvage anything they want, and even kill NPC's that spawn. It is not your "space", and your request to shoot first is akin to letting me neuter you just because you looked at my wife with lustful eyes, regardless of whether you were going to violate her or not!

4.) You don't actually solve the problem of the "Wei Todaki" mission at ALL. Yes, you make it so the missioners can fight back, but the pragmatic nature of players means the organized and prepared pilots will obliterate the unprepared, especially when surprise is on their side. In other words, you don't solve the problem you claim to solve. If your true goal is to solve the "mission critical items get stolen and you have no recourse" dilemma, make it so missions always respawn at downtime, even if they are listed as completed. This allows industrious characters to run missions like Love Lost for several days, thereby collecting many Wei Todaki's, resulting in more affordable market pricing.

If you want any respect at all, you should restate your opening statement with less spin and more truth:
1.) There are few ways to prevent the theft of mission critical items like Wei Todaki. While most of the time the penalties for an incomplete mission are negligible, in the case of COSMOS missions the consequences are severe.

2.) You wish to add an addition method to defend mission critical items by making combat a legitimate recourse. Then propose making any non-fleet member that attempts to warp to your mission location a suspect. This way you can freely engage them when they land at the mission space.

3.) Acknowledge that while this won't prevent people from stealing your mission critical item, it will open up interesting avenues of game play to prevent them from the theft.

4.) Acknowledge that this implementation may have negative impacts on ninja salvagers, as they will become suspect immediately upon entering a mission site.

Whoa... whoa... whoa....

Slow down fellas... slow down.

Let's take things one at a time.

While I still want to hear from Mike, I will agree that it is unfair to stall everything while he is forming his answer.

So, one concern at a time....

Fire away.

Edit:

If it has been already addressed, it is your responsibility to read it. I will however try to identify the post number in the thread that addresses the topic.

Yeah for the readers, post each of your concerns individually and the facts that support it.

I know it's a PITA, but it must be done.

And please, everyone, wait until the current concern is discussed before posting a new one so it doesn't look like you are thread crapping.

Sorry, Mike, I don't feed trolls.

If you can't even answer a simple question for the sake of clarity, you are trolling.


And, there are examples already posted by others in this thread that prove my statements.