What if we created a new flag for “suspicious activity” to alert players in hi-sec who is looking at them and also give angel responders (or anti-gank alts) a chance to orient on the potential gank?
Save the coding time and just use something that is already in place with a similar name. Suspect flag.
2 Likes
I don’t follow. What do you mean? Of course devs patch things, so what? What do the examples you mention prove?
Obviously you and everybody else wanting the change think it benefits you that the new targets would happen to be the players that do things you don’t like… Does that need any explanation?
If you just wanted more targets you’d ask for a lot of things to cause a suspect flag, including things you might do yourself, but you don’t want that, you want the new targets to be those that do things you don’t like and nobody else…
Really? Do you really think I haven’t answered this question A LOT of times already? In the very post you’re replying to even… Did you read it before replying?
Of course you don’t, nor does anyone else wanting the change for that matter… That’s exactly what you’re asking for…
What if it was based on the code for Contact standing markers or yellow-boxing? They’re already doing modifications to the boxing mechanics.
It’s not a huge deal. I’m sure you’d figure out a way to cope…
It doesn’t matter if you follow or not.
But I have ganked plenty of people. Playing make believe and guessing doesn’t make an argument. This change wouldn’t help me. I have never been scanned then ganked. (to my knowledge)
Citation please. Who said I didn’t like cargo scanners? Why do you keep playing pretend? Where is the proof of this?
If you can’t answer just say so. No need for another paragraph.
No, you don’t need to fit a weapon to have a tracking system. Evasive systems and navigation have effects of tracking without weapons. Unless you’re saying my CAR which is made for CIVILIAN use with it’s GPS (tracking system) has a cannon somewhere I’m not alerted to… Pardon me… I must now convert my car into a tank.
You do in EVE. Only turrets are effected by them.
Not in EVE.
Your “CAR” is not a spaceship in EVE. Your argument is irrelevant.
If you believe your “CAR” is a spaceship in EVE you should seek mental help.
As I’ve been told before there is now a non-zero chance that you will get into a car accident in space.
1 Like
Cool story. Still not EVE.
Cool story. Means you can’t figure a way around it. Thanks for confirming you can’t argue better.
Arguing against a mentally ill person that believes their car exists in EVE doesn’t mean someone can’t produce an argument.
The only time I use real life arguments in games is to show how dumb those arguments are. Your argument is dumb.
Is an incorrect hypothesis in which the assumption of the mental state of the opponent relies upon your preconceived conclusion being true. No evidence is given to the contrary resulting in:
The evidence is above. You’re saying your car is somehow relevant to the discussion because it has a GPS system.
Lol…see anyone can do that. We are arguing about cargo scanners in a game. I mentioned tracking disruptors because they do no harm to a unarmed freighter since they only tracking disrupt turrets. Not any other part of the ship. So if you want to get technical you’re doubly wrong now.
Is a GPS system NOT a tracking system? Yes or no. If you can not answer that then don’t reply and investigate what GPS means. This might help:
I never said it wasn’t. Of course it is.
GPS is not a thing that exists in EVE.
You do realize it is a game right?
EVE doesn’t use GPS for ships to move from point A to point B.
The ships in EVE ability to move from point A to point B is not changed by a turret disruptor.
You’re either a successful troll or really uninformed about this game.
I am going to assume the former.
In which case disrupting the tracking would be a criminal action. Or hacking the GPS so that a car thinks it should DRIVE INTO ON-COMING TRAFFIC would be… wait for it… a criminal offense. In which case disrupting a tracking device IS still a criminal offense. Congratulations.
You confirm yourself wrong.
Which would make sense if this wasn’t a game. Are you okay?
If that makes you feel better I suppose.
The only wrong thing I did was argue with someone that is wholly incapable of being relevant about what was discussed.
Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity. - Martin Luther King, Jr.
The question is why you are choosing to ignore a relevant situation intentionally.
Any item used by a civilian in the real world capable of seeing inside the trunk or cargo area of another persons vehicle without their permission is illegal to use.
So given your inability to separate the game from real life you are left in a place where you have to agree that people using cargo scanners should be destroyed or given the suspect flag in the game.
Anything else? Move along troll.