General Hide 'player' ship on scanner and on the description - additional option

[Kyokushin]

Hmm, maybe we misunderstood somerwhere.
The point is not to remove ships from scanner/radar, but give a possibility to mask 'human' id to let you see human ships same as NPC.

The proposed variant is the 'KWS scanner' could in supercruise be able to scan and show who is the player - but i as mentioned on the beginning - here we can spend nights on discussion of implementation of that, and i am not sure about necessity of this variant.

You may suggest how such 'kws scanner' could work if we would assume the all ships would be displayed as NPC.

 

[antiriad]

People gave some points and i explained why in my opinion 'not'

OK - see below

No one need to scan ships during entering the system, if you're purpose of flight is not to fight, because if you do not want to fight, just flee

So, you're saying that, under your system, if one enters a new system and sees that there are other ships, one should always leave? That seems a bit odd. The point is that, under the current system, one can see if another PLAYER is around immediately and then choose whether to leave that system, switch to Solo/PG, or whatever one wants to do. Under your system, that not possible. If you wait until you are actually interdicted to react, you are increasing your risk.

On your opinion drawbacks - easy for me to debunk all of them

Well you haven't done so far! Let's just take the example @Dillon Fallon mentioned above - that your suggestion will reduce the amount of friendly social interaction in the game. That's CLEARLY a drawback. The only reponse I've seen you give to that is for a player to type "hello" in system chat. That's not a solution, it's not practical and it's most definitely not debunked!

If you were looking for an echo chamber, then you've come to the wrong place. However, that fact you are simply dismissing credible objections out of hand that you (incorrectly) think you have debunked, then this only strengthens the theory that others have suggested - that you are proposing this change to make it easier for YOU to "gank", and disguising this as altruism, which, if true, is a pretty poor show, IMO

 

[Techmonkey]

Aha

Hmm, maybe we misunderstood somerwhere.
The point is not to remove ships from scanner/radar, but give a possibility to mask 'human' id to let you see human ships same as NPC.

The proposed variant is the 'KWS scanner' could in supercruise be able to scan and show who is the player - but i as mentioned on the beginning - here we can spend nights on discussion of implementation of that, and i am not sure about necessity of this variant.

You may suggest how such 'kws scanner' could work if we would assume the all ships would be displayed as NPC.

Aha!
This makes bit more sense but it wouldn't work. As already mentioned before gankers/aggressors wouldn't need that tool at least after a while and gankees wouldn't bother to use it at all.
It would be all the same as we have now with more disadvantages for the newbies / pve players

 

[Navigare Necesse Est]

Why would I have a choice how my radar contact resolves on other players' displays? That is completely backwards. Heard of game rules? I mean ED is a mess. But really no point in adding more messy framework to it. Games need a way to function reliably.

 

[Dillon Fallon]

With my suggestion you will be still able to 'say hello' and if someone will be interested then will wing up with you, if not - then not - same as today.

I might have missed that bit.

How would I know someone else is there if there were just solid squares? I'm not checking the contacts tab every 5 minutes when I'm in the middle of something else.

Also, gankers are of no consequence to me, so all I'll see is a scanner full of solid squares/triangles and I'll high wake/attack the ship or blow them up or get blown up and eat a rebuy. Doesn't matter. What will happen more than likely is I'll spend more time doing stuff in combat ships and be disappointed when I submit to the interdiction and it turns out that it's an NPC as they've crumbled in seconds.

Because the disparity between a ganker and an NPC is so large I want to manage my expectations.

 

[Kyokushin]

OK - see below

So, you're saying that, under your system, if one enters a new system and sees that there are other ships, one should always leave? That seems a bit odd. The point is that, under the current system, one can see if another PLAYER is around immediately and then choose whether to leave that system, switch to Solo/PG, or whatever one wants to do. Under your system, that not possible. If you wait until you are actually interdicted to react, you are increasing your risk.


Well you haven't done so far! Let's just take the example @Dillon Fallon mentioned above - that your suggestion will reduce the amount of friendly social interaction in the game. That's CLEARLY a drawback. The only reponse I've seen you give to that is for a player to type "hello" in system chat. That's not a solution, it's not practical and it's most definitely not debunked!

If you were looking for an echo chamber, then you've come to the wrong place. However, that fact you are simply dismissing credible objections out of hand that you (incorrectly) think you have debunked, then this only strengthens the theory that others have suggested - that you are proposing this change to make it easier for YOU to "gank", and disguising this as altruism, which, if true, is a pretty poor show, IMO

Not leave the system - i mean flee in case of interdiction and necessity of a fight. There is no point to wait if someone is interdicting your ship. Its quick decision, fight or run. Small talk you may do in supercruise safely (of course it may expose youre player)

The point is all alleged drawbacks are presented as fact, but they're not. There is no point why saying 'hello all' might reduce friendly interactions in game.
If you see a ship as player you cannot assume it will be social interaction - you may expect 'hi friend' in same as the rebuy screen.

There is nothing against just turning on 'i am human' and surely if someone else want, will also turn it on or will respond to your hello.

Do you trying to tell if you're flying with 'player ships' in system you feeling the social interaction even if they do not completely care about your presence ?
If yes, then better, you will be able to feel more social interaction because any shib could be a hidden player

Maybe it will even ra

So again, agument about lack of social interaction debunked and contrary argument provided.

In your opinion 'incorectly' because your against the opinion, but you're against, not me. You provided some doubt, and you got the answer. I am not expecting you will like it and i am not requiring from you to like mine or any agreement.

I think is the wright place for this suggestion and discussion And not consider to going out.

Aha
Aha!
This makes bit more sense but it wouldn't work. As already mentioned before gankers/aggressors wouldn't need that tool at least after a while and gankees wouldn't bother to use it at all.
It would be all the same as we have now with more disadvantages for the newbies / pve players

Pve and newbies will have only advantages because gankers will not know the newbies/pve are human players or not. Lets assume the situation without a scanning possibility.
They are masked, they looks the same as NPC. Gankers need to be pull out ALL new NPC ships and destroy all of them to have a hope a human would be somerwhere.
Gankers are not interested in shooting to NPC

Why would I have a choice how my radar contact resolves on other players' displays? That is completely backwards. Heard of game rules? I mean ED is a mess. But really no point in adding more messy framework to it. Games need a way to function reliably.

Not a choice how your radar will resolve targets, but a choice how you want to be resolved by others - as human ship (bordered empty marker) or NPC (filled marker).

 

[Techmonkey]

Pve and newbies will have only advantages because gankers will be not know the newbies/pve are human players or not. Lets assume the situation without a scanning possibility.
They are masked, they looks the same as NPC. Gankers need to be pull out ALL new NPC ships and destroy all of them to have a hope a human would be somerwhere.
Gankers are not interested in shooting to NPC

I really can't tell by now whether you are dense or just flat out trolling people.
just some food for your gank proof brilliant plan thoughts. Have you ever seen an NPC entering a system at the sun?

 

[antiriad]

In your opinion 'incorectly' because your against the opinion, but you're against, not me. You provided some doubt, and you got the answer. I am not expecting you will like it and i am not requiring from you to like mine or any agreement.

OK - so an opposing argument to your proposal is only valid in the mind of the person proposing the argument, and can be dismissed if you don't agree? Gotcha...

So again, agument about lack of social interaction debunked and contrary argument provided.

This is completely dissonant with the previous point I've quoted above - just because YOU think you have "debunked" an argument, does not mean that argument has been debunked. You are proposing a change, therefore the responsibility lies with YOU to convince others that your proposal is sound - something you have failed to do. I don't think anyone is surprised that YOU think your proposal is a good idea - most other people seem to disagree, therefore you have not debunked anything.

 

[antiriad]

Do you trying to tell if you're flying with 'player ships' in system you feeling the social interaction even if they do not completely care about your presence ?
If yes, then better, you will be able to feel more social interaction because any shib could be a hidden player

That's not the point though, is it? If I see a hollow blip in my instance, I may say "o7 CMDR" to attempt to start social interaction, which may or may not occur. If I don't see hollow blips, I won't type anything in system chat, because NPCs don't respond! I simply can't believe that you think people are going to attempt social interaction in every system just because there might be another player hiding among NPCs. Even if they did, that's a good way for a "ganker" to identify a target...

Sorry for double post...

 

[Kyokushin]

I really can't tell by now whether you are dense or just flat out trolling people.
just some food for your gank proof brilliant plan. Have you ever seen an NPC entering a system at the sun?

Personal comments are necessary - keep discuss civil pls
Never said the plan is gank proof. But will do gank slightly harder. It would be good if npc would appear near star, to have similar behaviour as human trader.

OK - so an opposing argument to your proposal is only valid in the mind of the person proposing the argument, and can be dismissed if you don't agree? Gotcha...


This is completely dissonant with the previous point I've quoted above - just because YOU think you have "debunked" an argument, does not mean that argument has been debunked. You are proposing a change, therefore the responsibility lies with YOU to convince others that your proposal is sound - something you have failed to do. I don't think anyone is surprised that YOU think your proposal is a good idea - most other people seem to disagree, therefore you have not debunked anything.

Its a discussion, everyone may present whatever argument or opinion he want and everyone including me and you may comment that.

You may not like how something was debunked and no one may, but it does not influe if something is debunked or not.
I do not even to convience people to my suggestion - i presented it, you may like or dislay, its up to you.

Your point of view is not proving something, because we're discussion about things what may happen or not and may be designed in few different way. As i contrary i can present my point of view where i am pointing why you're in my opinion wrong (for example this social case), but at the end its our both opinion how we will imagine the possible effect.
In same way it may reduce social interaction as it may improve. The now discussion is about whose right is better what is honestly - a nonsense

That's not the point though, is it? If I see a hollow blip in my instance, I may say "o7 CMDR" to attempt to start social interaction, which may or may not occur. If I don't see hollow blips, I won't type anything in system chat, because NPCs don't respond! I simply can't believe that you think people are going to attempt social interaction in every system just because there might be another player hiding among NPCs. Even if they did, that's a good way for a "ganker" to identify a target...

Sorry for double post...

You - but not everyone. Other people may simply write 'hello world' Its up to you or them. And as i wrote - you may also enable your 'human' id and maybe someone will interact you - or someone else will interact him.

There is no reason to be 'hidden' if you want interaction And you cannot expect of people they want interaction with you - if they - then they could be flying on human ID enabled

 

[Techmonkey]

It's not a discussion anymore, you are ignoring facts by people who where/are involved first hand in the activities which would be affected by your suggestions. On top of ignoring their expertise you are belittling everyone with emojis to underline your point, wich is completely out the realm of the current state of the game. To me it looks like you are trolling and baiting people for whatever reasons.
I for one am out of this bait fest. o7

 

[antiriad]

Personal comments are necessary - keep discuss civil pls
Never said the plan is gank proof. But will do gank slightly harder. It would be good if npc would appear near star, to have similar behaviour as human trader.



Its a discussion, everyone may present whatever argument or opinion he want and everyone including me and you may comment that.

You may not like how something was debunked and no one may, but it does not influe if something is debunked or not.
I do not even to convience people to my suggestion - i presented it, you may like or dislay, its up to you.

Your point of view is not proving something, because we're discussion about things what may happen or not and may be designed in few different way. As i contrary i can present my point of view where i am pointing why you're in my opinion wrong (for example this social case), but at the end its our both opinion how we will imagine the possible effect.
In same way it may reduce social interaction as it may improve. The now discussion is about whose right is better what is honestly - a nonsense

OK...

You've made a post in a suggestions forum. This is presumably to generate debate about whether your idea has merit, the progression being that if enough people agree, the developers may implement your suggestion into the game.

Unfortunately, your idea has been met with counter-arguments that you have simply dismissed out of hand as "non-issues". You have failed to convince people of the merits of your proposal. At some point you may understand the drawbacks that others have presented to you, or you may choose not to - such is your right. But to dismiss another's legitimate concerns out of hand, then claiming to have "debunked" them is not conducive to healthy debate.

For my part, I believe that your proposal has far more drawbacks than benefits. You stated that the reason for this change is to reduce the possibilty of being "ganked", however you haven't addressed the suggestions that actually it gives more benefit to the "ganker". I'm happy to be convinced otherwise - I entered this discussion with an open mind, but your responses to the issues brought before you have convinced me that this proposal has no merit.

 

[Kyokushin]

You missed the point - people shared doubts - i responded and if someone do not like the idea will not be convienced and will never be.
But if someone questioned something, then i provided the answer and adressed his doubt - from that point if someone still dislike the idea then i cant help and its not my duty to convience all of people or any. People may dislike some suggestion just like that - its their right.

So there is no talk about any failure youre trying ineptly impose.

Its a healthy debate, we're sharing a opinions, all have been answered. The points was for debunk the suggestion, were trying to find a whole in that, but any alleged holes was commented and explained - and at this point again - people still can have any opinion about that.

Thanx for your arguments even if i disagree with them and good for you convinced someone for them. There is nothing more to say. Some people like, some dislike.

 

[antiriad]

You missed the point - people shared doubts - i responded and if someone do not like the idea will not be convienced and will never be.
But if someone questioned something, then i provided the answer and adressed his doubt - from that point if someone still dislike the idea then i cant help and its not my duty to convience all of people or any. People may dislike some suggestion just like that - its their right.

So there is no talk about any failure youre trying ineptly impose.

Its a healthy debate, we're sharing a opinions, all have been answered. The points was for debunk the suggestion, were trying to find a whole in that, but any alleged holes was commented and explained - and at this point again - people still can have any opinion about that.

Thanx for your arguments even if i disagree with them and good for you convinced someone for them. There is nothing more to say. Some people like, some dislike.

OK, since you have now taken to hurling insults as well as underhandedly belittling the viewpoints of others, I too will bow out.

Good luck with your suggestion - although I feel you need to understand the difference between "answered" and "debunked" - maybe it's a language thing, I don't know, but answered merely mean "responded", whereas "debunked" means entirely disproved. You have NOT achieved the latter...

 

[Kyokushin]

Never insulted here anyone Please do not impose on me a things what not happened.

Yes, there is a difference, and i will stick with 'debunked' - and it does not need to mean a someone need agree with that.

 

[antiriad]

Never insulted here anyone Please do not impose on me a things what not happened.

youre trying ineptly impose

You suggested I was "inept" - that's an insult. Don't accuse others then do the same thing yourself.

Yes, there is a difference, and i will stick with 'debunked' - and it does not need to mean a someone need agree with that.

Actually, it does. Debunked means disproved beyond doubt - the fact others dispute your refutals proves doubt still exists.

I am actually leaving this thread now - there's no discussion from you, just out of hand dismissals and belittling of the views of others

 

[Kyokushin]

You suggested I was "inept" - that's an insult. Don't accuse others then do the same thing yourself.


Actually, it does. Debunked means disproved beyond doubt - the fact others dispute your refutals proves doubt still exists.

I am actually leaving this thread now - there's no discussion from you, just out of hand dismissals and belittling of the views of others

Because you did it that way. If you could impose me something in sophisticated way or insult me in some original extraordinary way then i could even congratulate.
But the way how you have done it was just rough. Dont blame me - i am open someone want to insult me in some creative and intriguing way.

Yepp, that is why i used a term 'debunked'. Again - thanx for discussion.

 

[antiriad]

Because you did it that way. If you could impose me something in sophisticated way or insult me in some original extraordinary way then i could even congratulate.
But the way how you have done it was just rough. Dont blame me - i am open someone want to insult me in some creative and intriguing way.

Yepp, that is why i used a term 'debunked'. Again - thanx for discussion.

OK since you quoted my post, I got a notification, despite unsubscribing, so here I am again...

You suggest that this would be only of benefit to people at risk of being "ganked". This is demonstrably incorrect, as it reduces the possibilty of that person spotting another CMDR before interdiction. There - using your terms, I've just DEBUNKED your suggestion. I suspect you disagree. However, I'm not so arrogant as to make such a claim. Apparently you are different.

Also, person uses personally insulting language after chiding others for doing the same, then says it wasn't an insult because the person they insulted wasn't original enough in their point? Wow...

The majority of your "debunking" has simply been "no, I play the game THIS way. If you do it differently, then you're wrong and should start doing it MY way" - paraphrased obviously, but the fact you can't see this speaks volumes.

Your inability to see the points made by others, your unwillingness to listen to other points of view, and your insistence that YOU are the sole arbiter of what is right and wrong do you no credit, and will not assist you in winning the support of others for your arguments.

 

[Kyokushin]

OK since you quoted my post, I got a notification, despite unsubscribing, so here I am again...

You suggest that this would be only of benefit to people at risk of being "ganked". This is demonstrably incorrect, as it reduces the possibilty of that person spotting another CMDR before interdiction. There - using your terms, I've just DEBUNKED your suggestion. I suspect you disagree. However, I'm not so arrogant as to make such a claim. Apparently you are different.

Also, person uses personally insulting language after chiding others for doing the same, then says it wasn't an insult because the person they insulted wasn't original enough in their point? Wow...

The majority of your "debunking" has simply been "no, I play the game THIS way. If you do it differently, then you're wrong and should start doing it MY way" - paraphrased obviously, but the fact you can't see this speaks volumes.

Your inability to see the points made by others, your unwillingness to listen to other points of view, and your insistence that YOU are the sole arbiter of what is right and wrong do you no credit, and will not assist you in winning the support of others for your arguments.

Because being hidden is a benefit for someone who may be ganked, because if is hidden then will be not ganked because simply will be not recognizable as potential victim
Will it bring something beneficial for gankers? Only more engaging gameplay. Of course a ganker will have a possibility to hide then attack some players who will be not hidden (or even hidden with a bit of luck), but i never claimed it may be 100% gankproof solution So you wrote something obvious to contr- argue.

I never used insultment language - its your another imposal Now your trying to place same imposal over and over to bring it as a truth its another weak catch. Fedback is a gift - you may consider my opinion about quality of your insultment as poor. You may also insult me in some more sophisticated way, but please do not feel offended or insulted if someone will call your insult just weak or poor when it is. Take a feedback, and work on self-improvement if insulting people is a something what you like to do in life. I am not judging.

Anyone is playing as he want, but everyone is playing in same mechanics. So if someone is playing a game about the submarines and is trying to fly his submarine then its something more than playing a 'his own way'. That is of course slightly overcoloured example, but i am sure you will got a point.

At the last point again your discussing me - because i dont agree with you - not the subject of the discussion. Since the beginning i am encouraging the people to share their own opinion because there is no wrong opinon here. Each time i pointed anyone may like, dislike, not agree and we do not need to agree. Its called sharing an opinions
So again - its only the yours opinion about me, not the fact An opinion completely not related to topic.

I suppose you missed - not only i not offended you but also not discussed you ( okay, i have rated a quality of your insultment once but realy, please work a bit on it if you would like to insult me again somehow in future ).

 

[antiriad]

Because being hidden is a benefit for someone who may be ganked, because if is hidden then will be not ganked because simply will be not recognizable as potential victim
Will it bring something beneficial for gankers? Only more engaging gameplay. Of course a ganker will have a possibility to hide then attack some players who will be not hidden (or even hidden with a bit of luck), but i never claimed it may be 100% gankproof solution So you wrote something obvious to contr- argue.

I never used insultment language - its your another imposal Now your trying to place same imposal over and over to bring it as a truth its another weak catch. Fedback is a gift - you may consider my opinion about quality of your insultment as poor. You may also insult me in some more sophisticated way, but please do not feel offended or insulted if someone will call your insult just weak or poor when it is. Take a feedback, and work on self-improvement if insulting people is a something what you like to do in life. I am not judging.

Anyone is playing as he want, but everyone is playing in same mechanics. So if someone is playing a game about the submarines and is trying to fly his submarine then its something more than playing a 'his own way'. That is of course slightly overcoloured example, but i am sure you will got a point.

At the last point again your discussing me - because i dont agree with you - not the subject of the discussion. Since the beginning i am encouraging the people to share their own opinion because there is no wrong opinon here. Each time i pointed anyone may like, dislike, not agree and we do not need to agree. Its called sharing an opinions
So again - its only the yours opinion about me, not the fact An opinion completely not related to topic.

I suppose you missed - not only i not offended you but also not discussed you ( okay, i have rated a quality of your insultment once but realy, please work a bit on it if you would like to insult me again somehow in future ).

thank you for proving my point - couldn't have done it better myself