Ship/Cargo Scanner to give penalty e.g. suspect timer

EVE Technology and Research Center Player Features & Ideas
,
354

No. Again.

So you’re saying so you’re saying. Christ. I typed it out this time for you.

I am saying (pay attention) that modules that penetrate another players hull or cause disruption of any kind should get a flag. If they don’t do either they should not be flagged.

People keep going on an on about harm and then turning to the slippery slope of scan probes and directional scanners. They don’t penetrate a hull. They just don’t.

Too much bias if you ask me. It’s almost like some gankers just suck at life. Will getting a suspect flag when you cargo scan someone make it impossible to gank them for some reason?

Just posting my opinion on the subject. It is what makes sense to me.

355

And with this modification, scanning a ship. Where is the contradiction ?

356

I’m not a ganker.

I also don’t afk cloak or start wars. But check my stance on them.

Why should scanners get a suspect flag for penetrating a hull. What makes the hull different to an mtu or can when it comes to looking at what is inside?

357

Scanning a ship does not cause suspect. Not a cargo scan nor a ship scanner. Nor probes. Nor dscan. Nor any kind of indirect assist or intel gathering.

If you want to change any of that, including cargo scanning, burden on you is to say why.

358

So you’re saying that you don’t like alpha pilots?

You’re saying that all alpha pilots should get ganked repeatedly until they quit?

I like the “so you’re saying” game. You just read what someone types and try as hard as you can to take it as far out of context as possible.

359

Ha if an alpha quit because they got ganked they probably wouldn’t be long for this game anyways.

360

So you’re saying you didn’t read the part about getting ganked repeatedly (repeatedly) until they quit.

Getting off topic but this is exactly what you continue to do. You take what someone says and you try to make it sound like something it is not.

Cargo scanners used on a player are used for one reason. They are a prelude to a gank. Outliers exist on both sides. Everyone acknowledges that.

361

That’s unrelated. Stating one’s opinion is different from affirming that a rule would lead to an inconsistent state.
The OP already expressed why he thinks this modification makes sense. Then YOU affirm there is a contradiction. So the burden is on you to exhibit that contradiction.
(again please note I didn’t say there is no contradiction, I said you can’t claim there is one without showing it)

362

They aren’t. But even if they were, so what?

Gathering intel before an attack doesn’t mean you should be a global target. It doesn’t in any other case so why should it be for ganking?

He basically said something that was self contained and circular. It doesn’t really go anywhere. It certainly wasn’t some ‘eureka, he’s right!’ moment.

I have shown the inconsistency. Shooting peoples stuff, theft and direct assistance in a fight you’re not part of are the causes of suspect flag. Scanning does none of these and rightly does not cause a suspect flag. To do so would create an inconsistency,

Show me where there is something like scanning or intel gathering that causes a suspect flag. Or a module that has an no affect on a ship that causes suspect. Either of you.

363

That’s your interpretation. He just expressed his opinion on what feels right for him in the game.
If you expected it to go somewhere else, I think you don’t understand the goal of expressing one’s opinion …

Which is ? I’m still waiting for it.

Nope, that would only be a modification of the rules, not a inconsistency - until you prove so.

Nope. YOU affirm there is a contradiction. Thus YOU have to prove it. Nobody else. Just because it’s a modification, does not mean it’s a contradiction - which is basically all you said and so is wrong.

Nope. It would only create a change in the rules. Unless of course you can show us a contradiction in those rules.
The rule “Scanning does none of these and rightly does not cause a suspect flag.” is not a requirement, it’s a choice. Which can be changed.

TLDR : so far you just keep repeating a change would create an inconsistency, without being able to show that inconsistency. You are either unable to show that contradiction, or unwilling ; in former case you should not say it exists, in later case why are you even making posts ?

364

Of course it can be changed. But why would we? ‘just cause’?

365

You said there was a inconsistency. It’s your burden to prove it. Not anybody else.
Until you prove a contradiction, this proposal is just a change that keeps consistency.

366

Let’s just say you’re never going to accept my ‘proof’ no matter how compelling it is. And when I’ve asked what proof you want you’ve ignored me.

It’s still falls to you guys to say why this change should happen. And the only honest answer has been, ‘i don’t like ganking. Just one more nerf’.

367

It’s not me who affirmed that was inconsistent. You were, so YOU need to provide a proof that such a modification would make a contradiction between the rules. All you are saying is that this would be a change of the rules, which is the essence of a proposal.

With that same logic of yours, any modification of the game would make it inconsistent.

And it was done. OP’s opinion was given several times already. Yet your “proof” has still to be shown.

368

Well that’s obviously not true.

Ships are balanced around each other so that power is consistent. Modules and ships are being rebalanced via tieracide into ‘roles’ to be consistent with those that already are.

But even if that was true, I’m not saying you can’t make changes that are inconsistent with current rules. I’m saying those arguing for such changes should make better arguments than ‘just cause’ or ‘i dont like it’.

Peace out.

369

Really this makes no sense at all.

I’m pretty sure you did not check the meaning of consistency.
To say that the power of an avatar and the power of a noobship is consistent is … I don’t know, I know you like it when I call you dumbass so I will try to find other word :stuck_out_tongue:

And they explained their opinion. Which IS enough, the choices made in the game are ONLY the result of opinions.
If you find an inconsistency then it’s very important to show it, otherwise this can create bug.

But saying “I think the scanners should make user suspect” is definitely as fine as saying “I think HS should be removed” or other “CCP give alphas the skills to fly a rorqual already !!!”.
In the case of OP I think it’s for analogy with IRL when someone enters your private home. In my case it’s for balance purpose, so that people who want to gank with scan (suicide gank or neutral scanners) have to consider the possibility to lose that scanner.

You can definitely express your opinion, that this would ruin the game of gankers (which I don’t agree with) or that the real life analogy does not make sense (like every analogy,it is made to convey a feeling, not to prove anything). But you can’t say this would make inconsistency without a proof of it.

370

-1 The action doesn’t warrant the timer.

The fact is this is an attempt to affect change in a different issue: freighter attacks, which has its own solution: Don’t expect to fly around with billions SOLO and expect to get away with it.

The game can’t be changed to make 1v10 safe.

371

You need an education very badly.

Especially when your argument against something is a fallacy.

372

I believe you are looking for this:

image

1 Like
373

This debate seems to hinge on a cargo scanner being used on a ship expressing some kind of evil intent followed by some back and forth over to what extent one can express a potentially evil intention with their eyes before getting a suspect flag. Can you express it to the point of peering inside a ship? Inside a Mobile Tractor Unit? Inside a Secure Container? A Jetcan?

This is the very essence of a slippery slope, in my opinion. Wherever you slide the indicator, it will be logical and reasonable sounding to inch it over one more step.

“Because it trespasses the hull” is applicable to all of these things, and that is why it doesn’t make a rational argument in the distinction between why a jetcan is ok to look into, and a freighter is not. A person looking into a jetcan might steal. A person looking into a freighter might gank it. Until a theft or gank actually happens, though, nobody gets any flags.

The game allows you to peer into any of these things. For jetcans it’s a simple matter of proximity, for ships, a module is required. The mode is different, but the effect is the same, and the game consistently does not flag you as suspect for only looking, regardless of the mode employed to peek.

This proposal changes that. If this goes into effect, looking is sometimes going to get you flagged, and sometimes not. No longer will you be able to simply tell a newbie that looking at something will never get you flagged. Now you have to distinguish between when using a cargo scanner is legal, and when it is a suspect level offense.

On the flip side, hitting someone with a tracking disruptor always flags the firing player criminal in high sec. There are no exceptions for the source or target ship’s fitting. Simple, clean, consistent and easy to explain to the uninitiated.

This frame of reference doesn’t rely on morals, or judgement calls. It doesn’t require any splitting of hairs on how much looking (or tracking disruption) is suspicious (or criminal), and I think that’s the better way to be.

(Apologies to Omnathious Deninard for replying to him directly. I had meant to make this a general reply when the content of it changed while I was composing it.)

2 Likes