These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Add a Suspect Flag for Mission Invasion

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed
Agony Empire
#561 - 2014-01-30 00:16:35 UTC
Dun'Gal wrote:

And a very flawed argument, see below for why this is flawed (and hilarious)
Abdul 'aleem wrote:
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.


By the logic of that last quote missioning in and of itself should flag the mission runner, let me use your own statement to argue this reasong:

If CCP intended for missioners to have 0 risk in missioning, they would be immune to attack in all areas while they missioned. It's legal to run missions in Low and Null space, but doing so carries a certain amount of risk due to the location choice. The fact that missioners can be attacked while missioning in these locations is proof that CCP does not have the intention of making the choice to mission risk free.

Would you care to comment on this? Also can you give me an example other than preemptive strike, that would be made available as a result of the change proposed in your OP?


This made me laugh...

At this point, it is becoming clear the Op is a troll and doesn't want to address valid feedback.

/thread already!
Abdul 'aleem
Sumiko Yoshida Corporation
#562 - 2014-01-30 00:20:22 UTC  |  Edited by: Abdul 'aleem
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:


This made me laugh...

At this point, it is becoming clear the Op is a troll and doesn't want to address valid feedback.

/thread already!


If you have a concern, just post it clearly*** and the facts that support it and we can discuss them.

What is your concern if this suggestion is implemented?

The ability for everyone and their allies to legally counter-gank mission invaders... yes please. Add a Suspect Flag for Mission Invasion

Click "like" in the original post to support it.
Dun'Gal
Myriad Contractors Inc.
#563 - 2014-01-30 00:23:00 UTC
My concern is your inability to answer the simple questions that have been asked of you, namely the following:

What new options does your proposal open up other than pre-emptive strike by a mission runner/others, to assist the mission runner in defending the loot from a mission?

Additionally I would like you to comment on the quotes I posted here, in particular the quote of your argument about why salvagers should be flagged and my response to this quote. For your benefit I will reference it, seeing as you seem incapable of reading back.

Dun'Gal wrote:

Abdul 'aleem wrote:
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.


By the logic of that last quote missioning in and of itself should flag the mission runner, let me use your own statement to argue this reasong:

If CCP intended for missioners to have 0 risk in missioning, they would be immune to attack in all areas while they missioned. It's legal to run missions in Low and Null space, but doing so carries a certain amount of risk due to the location choice. The fact that missioners can be attacked while missioning in these locations is proof that CCP does not have the intention of making the choice to mission risk free.

Would you care to comment on this?
Abdul 'aleem
Sumiko Yoshida Corporation
#564 - 2014-01-30 00:27:38 UTC  |  Edited by: Abdul 'aleem
Dun'Gal wrote:
My concern is your inability to answer the simple questions that have been asked of you, namely the following:

What new options does your proposal open up other than pre-emptive strike by a mission runner/others, to assist the mission runner in defending the loot from a mission?



Refer to the posts in and around #241, #521 and #538.

Dun'Gal wrote:


Additionally I would like you to comment on the quotes I posted here, in particular the quote of your argument about why salvagers should be flagged and my response to this quote. For your benefit I will reference it, seeing as you seem incapable of reading back.



Abdul 'aleem wrote:
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.


What are you confused about in my quote?

The ability for everyone and their allies to legally counter-gank mission invaders... yes please. Add a Suspect Flag for Mission Invasion

Click "like" in the original post to support it.
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
#565 - 2014-01-30 00:35:10 UTC
Now I am trolling just for asking a simple question without jumping through hoops.

Just answer directly. It's Ok. If you have an answer we can have a discussion. If not you are just crap posting to keep a troll thread going.
Dun'Gal
Myriad Contractors Inc.
#566 - 2014-01-30 00:38:29 UTC
Please instead of referencing approximate posts (I have already once humored you in this regard and there was nothing new there,) can you instead provide quotes of specific examples of additional counterplay, outside of the previously stated pre-emptive strike by missioner or other neutral.

As to the quote about salvagers, I don't really need a comment on it - fairly certain you realize the flaw in your argument.
Abdul 'aleem
Sumiko Yoshida Corporation
#567 - 2014-01-30 00:41:31 UTC  |  Edited by: Abdul 'aleem
Dun'Gal wrote:
Please instead of referencing approximate posts (I have already once humored you in this regard and there was nothing new there,) can you instead provide quotes of specific examples of additional counterplay, outside of the previously stated pre-emptive strike by missioner or other neutral.



If you're sincere all the answers are there for you. If you're a troll, you'll continue to spam post.

Most rational people understand the impact of a global suspect flag and the resulting risk it carries. This has also been clearly posted throughout the thread by myself and others.

If you are claiming that there are no global risks in and out of the mission pocket while a person is suspect flagged, and that all the people who think so are wrong, just state your case and the facts supporting it.

Dun'gal wrote:


As to the quote about salvagers, I don't really need a comment on it - fairly certain you realize the flaw in your argument.


I feel the same about your response to it. Blink I understand that you think that there is a flaw, but you offer only an analogy which is flawed as support nothing else.

We can agree to disagree.

The ability for everyone and their allies to legally counter-gank mission invaders... yes please. Add a Suspect Flag for Mission Invasion

Click "like" in the original post to support it.
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
#568 - 2014-01-30 00:45:22 UTC
Yet another post empty of content or answers to the concerns about the glaring problems caused by the suggestion.

You go, Bro. Keep the troll alive.
Dun'Gal
Myriad Contractors Inc.
#569 - 2014-01-30 01:04:09 UTC
I am sincere, so I will humor you once more.

Post 241
Kirkwood Ross wrote:
This opens up a new type of merc service for people who want to pop others in hi-sec. Go to a mission hub and cloak up in a mission, when a guy some sniffing around decloak and ambush.
Preemptive strike

Post 521 Mentions literally nothing with regards to counterplay, except at one point using the word vigilante. Which implies preemptive strike, or perhaps attack after the theft (which you can already do) nothing new here.
I also read everything up to and a bit beyond your last suggessted post and found this in post 529
Abdul 'aleem wrote:
And, the added suspect flag gives all of the other benefits listed in the OP, specifically many more options are available for legally countering the invasion.
which is you making the same blanket statement with no examples.
And finally post 538
My Little Pyongyang wrote:
Mission bears won't shoot suspects. Players who pose as mission bears setting up traps for griefers will shoot suspects. This is where the fun is.
Is again showing a "preemptive strike" veiled in an activity that does nothing to protect your mission loot, which is the intent of your OP.

So, please provide specific examples of additional counterplay that your proposal gives, other than a pre-emptive strike by the mission runner/other neutrals. If said examples exist, in order to help EVERYONE involved here you should probably include them in your OP.
ISD Ezwal
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
ISD Alliance
#570 - 2014-01-30 01:05:25 UTC
As this thread has been running around in circles, discussion wise, it is deemed to have run it's course.

Therefore, thread locked.

ISD Ezwal Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs)