You seem to be confused as to my purpose here... I am NOT "upset" that you have "debunked" my points. Firstly, you haven't, but secondly, I'm not so closed minded that I couldn't see issues with my points, were they properly addressed. You have failed to accomplish this feat for many of my points, and those of others. THIS is my point, and why I'm calling you out on being the sole arbitor of such matters. For you to claim that you have "debunked" someone's point REQUIRES you to be the sole arbitor of that. For me to point out that your refutal does not fully disprove a point, does not.
General Hide 'player' ship on scanner and on the description - additional option
- Thread starter Kyokushin
- Start date
And that was done, but it not my fault you're claiming its not refused. Its your claim not mine.
I know your point, you may of course refuse everything, even if i will write 2+2=4 and call 2+2=5 is debunked then you may refuse it and disagree, but that will be only your opinion, your point of view.
In our discussion of course things ar not such obvious, but still you received explanation to every point, but you're refusing that - i cant help more here. Your points was fully disproved or debunked - as you like to call it, but as i wrote - denial of disproval is common, i have no negative feelings to you about that. Its your right to deny anything you do not like and it is fine.
Sorry but can you repeat that again, what prevents the ganker from using this to sneak up on the victim?
No that was not done. Again, just because YOU claim a point has been debunked, doesn't make it so.
What a ridiculous statement! 2+2=4 is an absolute. Opinions on how a spaceship game may be changed and what the ramifications of those changes would be most certainly are not.
Woah there fella... you used the word debunked. I pointed out that your use of it, in this context is incorrect, and now you're accusing me of using the term? OK, I'm becoming more convinced that you're simply a troll now.
Anyway, see below
This was a point I made. Several of your refutals (which you claim "debunked" the points) hinged on a description of playing the game YOUR way. People suggested issues with your proposal, and your response amounted to "don't play the game that way then". Your response to MY point was...
This is utterly ridiculous. Again, you are equating opinions to absolutes, and in the process you are implying that someone playing the game their way, instead of the way you play, is playing the game "wrong". How does this refute my point above, or indeed the valid points of others that you used this fallacy to "refute"?
Anyway, this thread is now WAAAAY off topic, and your utter refusal to even entertain points that oppose yours render the topic pointless.
Nothing, and its not an intention. It will cause a ganker will simply not see who is a player but if he or she guess - then someone see rebuy screen. Never claimed its anti gank 100% solution.
No its not absolut in fact. 2+2 may be a different number - never said of which number system we're sayin
But in fact the game mechanics is - it is at is is - adjustable, but not by us - rules. We're discussing about changing one of them - its like discussion about changing some law of physics in our world.The context of using that word debunk was correct.
Answer what i provided to concernes are not related to my gamestyle, but to game mechanics and to game worlds. As i wrote you - if someone gameplay is to stop and talk instead of boost and run in case of danger, where everyone know in that game is few seconds to decide what to do then my answer what should be done is not related to my gameplay but simply related to word around that player. Someone is taking actions where will be destroyed then is taking a consequention - is being destroyed. Its his gameplay and his consequention.
If someone will play that way, then i have nothing to it - anyone may feel free for it, but still consequention will not change. If his goal is to survive then its bad decision if someone want to see his rebuy screen then good. "bad" and "good" may vary of point of view. But if someone is playing in a way which will lead him to inevitable destruction and is expecting it will not happen - i cant help here. I can only inform what will happen and and this point someone my like this information or not, may take it or displace. May even explode over and over and deny why it is happening and its not up to me - decision and consequence. Its not about someone have good gameplay and someone bad - its simple action-action reaction. Game mechanics and rules are well known and are touching everyone in same way.
Nope. I think i explained it in above comment. I am not denying a concerns which are against my point of view. I am simply answering them
Yeah, but your suggestion would give all the advantages of surprise to the ganker, which probably is not something Fdev might want to do.
I'm playing Red Dead Online a little bit and there players are represented by blue dots on minimap when they are within certain distance from the player (NPCs are not shown there at all). Players who are aggressive and killed or attacked another player get red dot on the minimap (for few minutes) that's visible from even greater distance, allowing peacefull players to better avoid griefers.
I wonder if something along those lines could work in Elite if connected to notoriety.
That could actually work, by allowing players to get an head up notification about a potential dangerous situation when arriving in a new instance, giving them a chance to act on this new information.
No, it wasn't. Look, I know you're not a native English speaker, so I'm making allowances here, but your use of that particular word, in this context, in incorrect. You would require agreement from opposing parties for that to be the case, something you have not received.
Not sure if you're just being "inept" (to use your term...) at explaining yourself here, or deliberately obtuse?
However, as an example...
You're clearly implying that you've "debunked" the issue because the way YOU play, the issue would be moot. However, other people may choose to play differently, and this is their right. It's not "incorrect" to choose to fight an NPC's interdiction, but submit to a CMDR's interdiction. You may choose not to do this, but that doesn't make it "wrong" for others to play that way.
Once again, you are not the sole arbitor of this. Really feeling the troll here...
You've completely failed to address this point that was made, you certainly haven't debunked it.
Once again, you are applying YOUR abilities and playstyle to others. It most certainly ISN'T easy for a new player to recognise a "common PVP build" - how on earth would they know? Even if it were, I suspect within a week of your suggestion being implemented, those who wish to "gank" would simply start using different builds, which although may take a little longer to achieve their desired result, would still be more than capable of finishing off a relatively new player.
You have completely and utterly failed to address this point. A very effective way of currently avoiding being "ganked" is to look for "hollow blips" on the radar upon entering a system. You can then make the decision to leave, or take an indirect route to your destination. With your proposal, I would need to take additional steps to be able to use this option, which brings me to...
Here's the crux of the issue... You feel you have "debunked" my point with the answer above that you gave to it. You simply haven't - your response does not refute the point that your proposal would tip the scales in favour of the "ganker" more than the potential victim. You can say you have "debunked" this ad infinitum, but your response does NOT answer my point.
Also, I've had a re-read through this thread. You have repeatedly mocked those who have put forward opposition (not just me, plenty of others as well). You have dismissed fair points out of hand repeatedly, usually with emojis, which comes across rather poorly for your part. You have also on a number of occasions told those who disagree with you to "leave the thread", and yet you maintain that you are open to healthy discussion and debate? Please....
Obvious troll is obvious...
The OP has repeately ignored this point. Makes one question their motives somewhat...
I like this idea
In same way as ganker will receive the advantages of suppresion the victim will receive the ability to hide. If we compare it to the number of gankers (around a dozen, less than 50 as someone mentioned here) then a small amount will receive possible and doubtable advantage against all others who will receive the possibility to hide.
Empty markers are showing the position of peaceful players in same as gankers.
I am glad you know, but i can assure you the word 'debunk' what is i actually wanted to use, and yes - i am debunked a points what would posted to mark the holes in suggestion.
Another exception what used and you dont like it (and you need to, but i still can use it) is expressing the quality o your imposes as clumsy, poor, awkward or simlpy low.
What i wanted to say - if you would like to impose me something or insult me (we discussed that already) then please do it some way what would impress people here.
At now i think most saw nothing more than try of cheap rhetoric catch.
Its not about my playstyle is better than someone else. The game have the rules and some mechanics - if you know it then you know, if you don't then you may get higher chance to see the rebuy screen. People who are deciding to play game are playing in same mechanics as other and are learning the game.
New player may do not know something but this is no matter in our case because rules are same for new or old player. New player may have knowledge about common pvp builds and old player may not. If not - then in some cases may be not able to recognize a gank player what may cause lead to rebuy screen. a consequence of lack of knowledge about the game what is playing.
At the end is computer game, and rebuy screen may help learn about possible cause of what happened. Before playing any game its a good practice to learn about it, about rules and common dangers, if someone will just turn on the game and will refuse learning then may the rebuy screen more often.
At this point - my suggestion to mask 'human id' may help to this person - of course if he or she will leanrn how to turn it off 'or we may make it off by default if you prefer - i dont have preferention here how it should be set by default'.
Of course a method of looking for empty points on radar is good. And in the reverse for your argument - a ganker fill simply have none of these on his scanner
I adressed it many times, but you are refused that - and that is your point of view, you can live in denial - your deniar, your life.
About the debunking one more word - again - its a denial of things what you don't like. I cant really help here. I will not lie i event want to, its finally up to you.
You questioned the suggestion, you got an answer and you're still claiming 'no, its not'. Fine, but its 'no its not' for you. Its only your humble opinion, not an absolute.
And i never mocked people - just answered their doubts with explanation how it works in current game mechanics and how will be after the change
If i may to add something - youre points are very easy to reverse and contr-argue. If you're trying to point something please try to look at something from different side. If you have some theory then please try to look on it from the counter position. For example if you're saying something will help gankers - then look on that from all other cases for example what if i will be ganker, and what if i will be the victim - what visibility on radar will give me in both cases and what will be the consequence of that for the other side.
The example of such reverse is what i wrote about looking on empty points on the radar. You have correctly pointed a victim will not have empty points on the radar because gankers will be hidden, but missed the victim will be also hidden so gankers wil also have no empty dot on radar. Both sides will need to figure out who is who in same way.
The good option is also not looking only for empty dots but looking at comm panel. You will see the nicknames of commanders in your instance and avatars what may give you nice information about possible rebuy screen
That could be a tricky question to keept or to hide it (if someone would turn off the hiding). Personally i would opt-in for the hiding the hidden commander, but this may be discussable option about advantages and disadvantages.
Last edited:
OK - you are clearly in denial about this. Debunk means to prove something incorrect to the general acceptance of the community. Are you seriously suggesting that the community here has accepted your refutals? And you accuse others of being in denial? Wow...
And yet...
Your mocking tone does you no credit.
I'm not attempting to insult anyone - again you try to mock people. Please don't do that.
and "gankers" can't do that to defeat the stated objective of your proposal? You're "debunking" your own arguments now...
No, I'm fully aware that the victim can also be hidden. The point, that has been made several times, by several people, is that this, in and of itself, hands further advantage to the "ganker", NOT the potential victim. You have continuously ignored and dismissed this point out of hand, but the point still stands. Also, the "ganker" is FAR more likely to even be AWARE that the function exists that the potential victim. Another point you've ignored.
As are yours
WOW - have you heard of the phrase "the pot calling the kettle black"? That VERY much applies here...
You would do well to take your own advice here. You put forward a proposal, you've received contra-points, and you're still claiming they don't count. Fine, but that's only YOUR humble opinion, not an absolute.
Last edited:
Well, let's agree to disagree, shall we?
I think someone mentioned this before, but hiding player icons would result in game world feeling empty - unless you would try to actually talk, or guess who's human, you would not know if you're alone or not - that would be somehow counter-productive to the idea of Open multiplayer game.
Elite features actually great Solo mode, where you can't encounter other players directly, but you can "feel" their presence by effects of their actions. Your idea could maybe work as something like another mode... named "Open Solo" or whatever. It might be interesting to test it, although I don't think there's any chance of this happening.
Its a first since over very long time a someone is claiming a 'debunk' require agreement of all. Many of people are using that term, including native English, without acceptance of their discussion opponents. At now i have even looked to few dictionaries what are presenting the context of using that word and none of them is claiming it is requiring acceptace of community or anyone.
I have never mocked You or anyone else. You have tried to impose me some words and i commented a quality of your imposal. If you don't like it - fine - please impose me something with the higher quality - i dont mind - i am open for learning and you may be sure i will write you 'mate, that was a great mock!'
If you like to mock me, insult me or impose me something - please just do it in more sophisticated way. Thank you.
Of course the gankers can look for comm screen, and thats why its open for discussion - to lock it or not. Its working for two sides exactly as i wrote.
I have answered to all points related to advantages and showed a victims will have these advantages, not the gankers.
At the end, its your advice not mine, you have pointed it to me at first.
can i help you in something else?
Sure, we can agree to disagree - its good to know your opinion - thanx for that.
personally i am not a fan of the solo and groups mode, but of course its my own preference.
In my opinion the overall NPC behaviour should be similar to human behaviour without marking the human as a human to give a player a feeling he is playing in crowded by humans area.
That is the idea what leaded it to write this suggestion, of course with an option for people to mark them as human or npc, to give a choice, because someone may want to show he is a human but someone other like to feel he is in high popuplated by humans game but without 100% sure who is who.
Its not a discussion about current option is worse or better than suggested. Personally i see more advantages, but there are many points of view, someone may see more disadvantages, or may see them stronger than advantages from his perspetive, and that is also fine.
I have never mocked You or anyone else. You have tried to impose me some words and i commented a quality of your imposal. If you don't like it - fine - please impose me something with the higher quality - i dont mind - i am open for learning and you may be sure i will write you 'mate, that was a great mock!'
If you like to mock me, insult me or impose me something - please just do it in more sophisticated way. Thank you.
Of course the gankers can look for comm screen, and thats why its open for discussion - to lock it or not. Its working for two sides exactly as i wrote.
I have answered to all points related to advantages and showed a victims will have these advantages, not the gankers.
At the end, its your advice not mine, you have pointed it to me at first.
can i help you in something else?
Sure, we can agree to disagree - its good to know your opinion - thanx for that.
personally i am not a fan of the solo and groups mode, but of course its my own preference.
In my opinion the overall NPC behaviour should be similar to human behaviour without marking the human as a human to give a player a feeling he is playing in crowded by humans area.
That is the idea what leaded it to write this suggestion, of course with an option for people to mark them as human or npc, to give a choice, because someone may want to show he is a human but someone other like to feel he is in high popuplated by humans game but without 100% sure who is who.
Its not a discussion about current option is worse or better than suggested. Personally i see more advantages, but there are many points of view, someone may see more disadvantages, or may see them stronger than advantages from his perspetive, and that is also fine.
Last edited:
I never said it required the agreement of all - you are putting words into my mouth. Please don't do that. However, a theory that someone has "disputed" is not necessarily "debunked" unless others are in agreement - it can't be unilaterel. Let me explain, since you seem incapable of understanding this concept.... (sorry, since you've taken to hurling insults and adopt a mocking tone, I feel justified in following suit)...
To use your earlier, rather ridiculous point, let's say you assert that 2+2=4. I reply and say it 2+2=5. By your terms, I've "debunked" your assertion, but I haven't, have I? Most people would disagree with me. Hence, I may have "disputed" your assertion, but not "debunked" it. Hopefully you can see the difference here, and why your use of the term "debunked" comes across as rather arrogant.
This statement doesn't really make much sense - hopefully it's lost in translation, but I suspect you're clutching at straws here...
No, you haven't. If you truly believe you have, quote a single response that agrees with your assertion here? Literally no-one agrees with your assertion, and it's demonstrably false anyway. Most "gankers" are experienced players, most victims are inexperienced players. By definition, the obstacles that your assertion presents will be more readily overcome by the more experienced player.
As myself and others have repeatedly pointed out, you are the one who is failing to understand the points of view of others. You need to cut yourself a large slice of humble pie here.
And with this comment, you confirm your arrogance. I will no longer waste any time. Can't argue with pork.
I never had an intention to puth anything in your mouth, sir, sorry if you got it in that way, but at the end you wrote:
not me. There is no need of general acceptance of the community. How community should agree or disagree? Who is deciding about the rules of agreement of disagrement, defining the community - in that case voters.
I don't mind, you also no need to sorry if you like to mock me slightly. Just mock, just do it - let your dreams comes true. I have got your point of course but again i cant agree here with you.
yes, sorry, it lost the sens indeed, but in meantime i have corrected it slightly. I am just writing from cellphone and the auto-correction is sometimes living own life.
In short - never mocked you or anyone here. You imposed me some words but it was really low-tier method of putting me words what i never wrote and i simply described that quality in one word what you consideret as mocking. Please do not feel mocked, of course you may try to mock me if you like but i am kindly asking for the higher quality mock.
If you will mock me by the 'high quality mock' i will even let you know about that and provide positive rating (of course if you care of it - i suppose yes if you felt bad with the last negative one).
There are few people who like overall idea and few who disagree. You may see these few likes on main page and few posts where people wrote they see it in overall interesting.
And yes - answered all of them (if i missed some - sorry).
The theory about experienced gankers and unexperienced victims is 'false', because indeed ganking may require some experience, so the being a potential victim does not mean to be unexperienced, because everyone can be potential victim, and population of 'all' are outnumbering the population of 'gankers' and there is more experienced peacefull players in whole playerbase than gankers in overall - experienced more or less.
Its quite obvious an ability to hide wil bring more advantages to large number of peacefull players than to small group of gankers. Few millions of players (probably) will disappear from 50 gankers radar and only 50 gankers will disappear from all in extreme scenario.
And again - i never even suggested it as 100% gank immune.
Okay - if you will feel better then can you imagine me as a pork. (mock rated as 6/10, slightly better than previous)
Last edited:
I'm against that kind of thing. How do you separate gank and pirates? I am always against ganking but piracy is as much a goal as trade and it should not suffer.
Is there even one player in the game to be attacked by NPC for nothing?
I get what you're trying to say, but pirates don't intend to kill their victims, so this could maybe work only if you destroy another player ship? This should also exclude powerplay enemies killing eachother of course... nevertheless It was just a thought - I don't really feel that current way of showing player ships is particularily wrong, or anything.
Well normally if you engage in piracy, you will not kill your intended target, so for most of the time, you would not have notoriety as a pirate.
It is usually a bad idea to kill your "customers", so I would expect pirates to beat you up but leave you alive but crippled if the "customer" decide to fight back
Such contract is only possible if there is consequences to breaching the terms of piracy. C&P is still a bit simplistic and until pointless and unlawful killing is properly punished, there is really little need beyond roleplaying and that annoying "I like to cripple myself" excuse for not using some game-play options for avoiding the killing a human (or otherwise) opponent.
Turned on its head, this is a game and people playing outlaw and scoundrels should also have game-play options. However, they should be restrictive and potentially end up in a dead end (breaking rocks on foot on a prison planet comes to mind, when Odyssey hits the fan) if not done with skill.
As it is, it is practically impossible to "lose" the game. So no risk and all reward. This is reflected in the overly simplistic "do right and live - do wrong and 'die'" ruleset we have at the moment.
S