I’m not looking for an emotional response.
I’m looking for a rational response for once. Please.
Again:
You have had several but you choose not to accept them. Rather hypocritical of you to ve honest.
The answers you seek can be found with clarification, with the Devs. If you choose not to seek them and just assume you are correct fair play to you . It doesn’t make you right, just presumptuous and frankly lazy
I never said I have limited experience coding. I said I have experience coding. I’ve shown evidence of having experience coding.
With basic knowledge of coding it’s not hard to see that “Turn off safeties for all players” and “turn off safeties for a subset of players” are similarly complex, with as only difference that turning it off for the subset of players has an extra filter.
Without that filter it’s just the first thing, which means FCCP is very capable of doing so with similar effort as it took to turn off red safeties for Alphas.
I see no reason to believe otherwise, and you haven’t given any.
I’ve been in a discussion with you and have refuted every point you made with new evidence.
Yet you still insist you’re right, despite evidence pointing to the contrary.
At which point are you going to make rational responses and accept that ‘the Earth is not in fact flat’, or in your case, accept that suicide ganking is intentionally part of the game?
The devs clarified it: in the game.
Who else do you think wrote all the code supporting suicide ganks in HS and the code describing that suicide ganks are a part of the game in HS space?
Did players write that?
Did gankers write that?
No, it’s all work by the devs that you see and write. If only you were to look at the evidence in front of you.
This you bro ?
@Gerard_Amatin Even IF you would find a statement of a dev saying clearly “Ganking is intended gameplay!”, he would still claim that we can’t be sure. Because
- the source is “outdated”
- the dev isn’t a “real dev”
- the dev might be a real dev, but not the dev that works on highsec gameplay
- the dev might be the real one dev that works on highsec gameplay but he might not have been around when the mechanic of ganking came into the game
- the dev might be around then, but we can’t know it if the dev isn’t just stating his personal opinion and not giving a CEO and council approved CCP/FC message
Aaaand sooo onn.
2 Likes
Exactly, the pattern shows we’ll always see a ‘next excuse’.
1 Like
Ah, and I even forgot:
- The dev hasn’t said it here at the topic, so the statement is unrelated !!!11111.
In that case we can give up.
Devs won’t waste their time on a thread like this.
We’ll never be able to convince kage1982!
2 Likes
Unless the devs invite him to Iceland to corporate HQ and provide a presentation about why suicide ganking is intentional game design he will not believe it… and even then will deny it. 
Actually I wouldn’t 
A blog or a speed a newsletter where CCP (insert name) says “Suicide Ganking is XYZ etc” and that’s all that is required.
So far we have patronising interpretations from you guys and a Screen grab that explains how concord works. (And a few stalkers and trolls thrown in) .
There certainly comes a point that you just have to let go. Some folks cant be reasoned with no matter the amount of evidence presented.
It would be best perhaps to just turn this thread into a game and get whatever entertainment can be salvaged from it.
For some reason, the “Gong Show” comes to mind…but im sure somebody could think of something better.
1 Like
Game: set up a chat bot to argue with him and see how long he will keep responding to the chat bot.
Edit: bonus points if the chat bot has a displayed character name that includes “parrot” in it. 
Finally you admit that like me you are nobody
This is not my dumpster fire of a thread.
1 Like
i believe you would. But lets agree to disagree and keep it civil! -_-
Man lights fire then cries arson .
You are a funny one.
If CCP cared about you they would say you were right. Double edged sword on any forum 
