not. at. all. You have a serious concern with definitions.
And to the other blabbering : This IS a choice by CCP, claiming otherwise without any kind of proof is affirming bullshite.
yes it is. You said what you think it means, I give you how CCP defines it.
"The Suspect Timer allows any other player to attack the pilot without penalty while the timer is active. CONCORD and gate guns will not defend the suspect nor will the attacker receive any standing penalty for initiating an attack on a suspect. "
Thatās how CCP defines the suspect timer. Learn your facts.
Everything else is just incorrect assumptions from you on what is, defines, means suspect timer and thus irrelevant.
Here is how Wikipedia defines the meaning of the word damage:
And here is what I and you said about webbing someone:
So can you please explain to me what exactly is this problem that I, not you, seem to have with definitions? Because it seems pretty obvious to me who is that has a serious mental problem hereā¦ But I could be wrong and am willing to learn, so please enlighten meā¦
And just for the benefit of others reading this that might actually be willing to understand and not just bickering or outright lying, if you have a problem with the use of the word ādamageā to mean something else than purely physical damage, just replace that word with āadversely affectā in my previous posts here.
You keep repeating ad nauseam the part thatās correct but utterly irrelevant to this discussion, as if posting something correct but irrelevant was proof of anything.
The very article you quoted describes what causes a pilot to be flagged suspect, and THAT is what matters here but youāre conveniently omitting and ignoringā¦
And the reason it matters is not to show how things are and use that an excuse to say they shouldnāt change. Itās to see that the decision of which actions and modules warrant a Crimewatch timer is rational and coherent, that being flagged always means the pilot did something that damaged (or adversely affected, if you prefer) another pilot in some way, not that he did anything āsuspiciousā.
Let me get this straight. The part that you omitted and ignored of the article that you quoted is irrelevant and the only thing that matters is the part you quoted? ROFLMAO
And the second quote proves I said that things shouldnāt change because thatās how they are? Have you lost your mind? Can you even read?
I was explaining WHY things are the way they are, that there is a reason why scanners donāt warrant a suspect timer, that this decision is rational and coherent, not arbitrary like you want to make everyone believe.
Are you really that incapable of understanding this and seeing the difference?
nope. Youāre not worth my time, and you seem specially stupid to not understand that slowing something and damaging it are two different things.
You affirm that black is white, sorry but thereās nothing I can do for you. Have a nice day, think whatever you want, Iām no more concerned by this bullshĀ”t of yours.
I see, so even after showing you that the word ādamageā has a broader meaning than purely physical damage, and that reducing the ability of a ship to move fits perfectly well within the definition of that word that you may find in say the Wikipedia, itās me, not you, thatās specially stupid to be able to understand itā¦
Not to mention that if you disagree with the meaning of that word, but were actually willing to understand what I was saying, you could just replace it with āharmā or āadversely affectā and that would completely solve this problem that I, not you, seem to have with the meaning of words and which seems to be hampering my ability to understand things so muchā¦
So TL;DR you could prove your point and show how wrong and stupid I am, but wonāt do it because Iām not worth your timeā¦
And yet you think itās worth your time to continue lyingā¦
Oh, Iām so sorryā¦ I was really expecting you could help with my stupidity and comprehension problemsā¦
Does that mean you wonāt post any more lies about what I said or didnāt say?
You can call the police āConcordā and say there is several armed men congregating around your car and you donāt feel safe. They will dispatch a large contingent do detain and disarm the suspects at which time their prior criminal acts will get them arrested for carrying firearms.
I like your analogy. It makes sense to make scanners suspect. Any more retardation?
These RL analogies are so pointlessā¦ There are lots of details that would have to be considered and usually arenāt for the analogy to be accurate, and even if you do it right it would still be pointless because this is a game, many things arenāt like they are in RL and they donāt have to.
This analogy, for example, does not even get close to the issue being discussed because weāre not talking about approaching someoneās car to visually look whatās inside, but rather about using a device from a distance to see whatās stored in the car and how itās been built.
Now, you might think this would āproveā that, because in RL you could do that unnoticed if such a device existed, you should be able to do the same in EVE too, but then youād have to take into consideration that doing that in RL would probably be illegal and hence, IF someone notices youāre doing it, you might get arrested for that.
So how do you translate that to EVE? Well, if you want to do it right based solely on what would happen in RL, you cannot automatically get a suspect timer, someone would have to notice itās happening and report it first, and only then you could be arrested, but then just arrested, whatever thatās supposed to mean in EVE, and not shot simply because of thatā¦
So if you do the analogy properly, that leads you to a situation that you cannot really accurately translate to EVE simply because things in EVE are not like they are in RL in the first place.
And I could go on explaining why @Ildrara reply to this poorly thought analogy makes no sense either, because sheās assuming the āsuspectā has a criminal history and carries weapons, which for the scout/scanner doesnāt have to be the case (and usually isnāt). Moreover, even if that was the case, the suspect would still only be arrested, not shot, and only by the authorities, no one else would be allowed to shoot him because of thatā¦ But again this is all utterly irrelevant and it doesnāt matter whether the analogy āprovesā things one way or another.
Analogies are only useful as a source of ideas, as in one might suggest the suspect timer to be activated at the request of someone noticing the scanning took place, not automatically. They cannot be used as proof that things in game should be one way or another.
Which is all I was getting at. I am on mobile and try to type as little as possible. So many are comparing this to real life. It is funny how some people are justifying keeping ship scanners as they are.
Most of those people want more ganking opportunities yet when given the idea of one they utilize to gank in the first place they are against it. Their bias is showing.
Cargo Scanners are, I feel, a part of the risk/reward balance of hauling, and present a way to make the relative value of goods relevant when hauling. This allows players who want to haul to make very pertinent decisions about how much theyāre willing to haul in a certain ship in a single trip.
The more the information is restricted, the more random ganks would become which would make the decision of how much to carry have less weight. Sure, if you carry less it would mean you could lose less, but you have less influence over whether your choice allows you to safely complete your delivery at all.
I would want the haulerās choice of how much value of cargo to carry, and whether to double wrap it, to retain the weight it currently has, and for that to be the case cargo scanning would have to remain as is.
Oh, but Iām against the change proposed here tooā¦
But itās actually the other way round, and thatās precisely one of the reasons Iām against this proposal.
I donāt see anyone asking for more ganking opportunities. What I see all the time are proposals motivated by a desire to nerf suicide ganking one step at a time, and I hate that. Changes to game mechanics should aim at improving the overall game experience, not at having more or less gankingā¦
The problem is the bias is showing for nearly everyone posting here, for those wanting the change tooā¦
Perhaps someone could, then, find the flaw in my logic, which is as follows.
Proposal adds āriskā to scanning by causing the scanner to go suspect.
Because of increased risk, scanning ships are either destroyed or discouraged from scanning.
Because less scanning is done, there is less information regarding the contents of potential targets.
Because there is less information, gankers must make less well informed decisions about whom to gank.
Because the ganker is less likely to know what the contents of a potential target are, the probability that the contents are at all relevant to the gank is reduced by some degree.
Because the decision of what to carry, and whether to double wrap is less relevant, the impact deciding what to carry is proportionately reduced.
If cargo scanning would turn you suspect we may as well make every person who thinks about harming another player just explode when the game detects it. That way only those who have āgoodā intentions can play the game.
Suspect allows any passer by to shoot me. Itās not a police response. The retarded analogy wasnāt mine. Iām actually showing how flawed it is to compare a game to reality.
This part is wrong. this is theorical risk, not practical risk. If a scanner is active he can avoid the risk, as the scanner have a good range.
The risk is only if the player wants to remain idle at a gate and scan ships in a non-tanky ships.
Now if he has a ship with <2s align and some tank, he can still sit at the gate : if he gets aggressed, he can jump then warp out (with 2s align)
he can also fit a MJD cloak to be able to escape instead of a 2s.
Or even a covert cloak.
Or just sit in a station docking range.
However he will need to fit some tank to avoid being instashot by other nades, and be active.
This in turn means scanners will need to make choices between full scan (sebo, rigs for scanners) and tankiness to remain on the field.
This will also mean that people will be able to hunt the scanners, just as people with scanners are able to hunt the freighters. It will resolve some of the asymmetric issues with ganking right now, which is gankers only field what they will lose on the operation.
This does NOT mean that gankers will not scan freighters.
This is also false. If a ganker has no information about a ship, he is more likely to wait for a target he has information on, than to suicide its ship on it. Of course if he is bored and has no target otherwise, he can decide to kill time by killing an empty double wrap hull-fitted obelisk. But after doing that twenty times he will learn to stop losing money on obvious baits.
it really is not an idea for nerfing suicide ganking, its just a cheap scanner shipā¦that HEY adds content cause now you can engage it without Concord interference
