Forums » Suggestions
Just posting "rejected", or kibbitzing about grammar/ punctuation/spelling is unwelcome here
fm, it's spelt kibitzing. only one b.
/me ducks
fm, it's spelt kibitzing. only one b.
/me ducks
Spelt
1. Hardy wheat grown mostly in Europe for livestock feed.
So, you are butting in and annoying wheat? Is that better than threshing?
As with most Yiddish words, there is more than one way to spell "kibbitz". One b or two - both are correct.
1. Hardy wheat grown mostly in Europe for livestock feed.
So, you are butting in and annoying wheat? Is that better than threshing?
As with most Yiddish words, there is more than one way to spell "kibbitz". One b or two - both are correct.
I throw my support behind this idea. Particulary the predicate from the OP,
"Remove in-flight pilot information for hostile players."
I've noticed some common grumblings about this, based on people's personal judgements of what's "good" and "not good". With a little verbal magic, I will now reverse your opinions!
1) The concern that it would make people more invisible and thus depersonalizes the game overall (key predicate!) is sometimes true. But check this out! By making it a condition whether or not names are displayed, it in fact makes things more personal because there is a reason to get to know someone. Building trust begins to become more important, especially in grey space, because you don't know whether or not person X is regarded as a pirate by Y% of people. You would have to judge on personal experience, and through their actions.
Here's a quote. "I rarely talk to or am talked at by people I pass in my travels, except for a "good fight" after a battle." Which is because people already know everything they need to about you, right down to how good a pilot your PK/death ratio says you are. Get this; the only use for communication is in fact to gather information. You could tag on people's e-mail address, and credit card information to their handles in VO, but the only extra conversation it would get you would be from marketers. Logic used; taking something away in fact makes it more valuable.
That this is merely a game, and not reality proves that comparing it to reality in any way is irrelevant. We can neither decide that it should be absolutely like reality, or nothing like reality, because it's simply a game and, as we all obviously know, doesn't have any bearing on reailty. Therefor to argue that it should remain absurd, even in the face of a change which might make things more fun (key predicate!) is as foolish as to suggest things remain realistic under the same condition. Logic used; demonstrating that one person's (supposed) reasoning is flawed does not demonstrate your own is valid.
That adding an option for players to be anonymous or to broadcast their identity, with certain in-game responses to each would be detrimental to roleplaying is a situation which I can hardly ever see as happening. Regradless of it more closely paralleing reality, it adds additional functionality to the game (key predicate!) to which users can express themselves. I'm sure you have your reasoning behind that obligatory statement, but how the value of masking one's identity be ignored in the roleplaying sense? Furthermore, how can we have such succulant situations as "Reveal yourself, or you will be forcibly removed from this sector" and "I'm looking for a pirate around these parts, flies a Corvult with double sunflares. Maybe you've seen 'em?" without some kind of anonymity? Pretend, that's how. And that's lame. Logic used; don't be lame.
"Remove in-flight pilot information for hostile players."
I've noticed some common grumblings about this, based on people's personal judgements of what's "good" and "not good". With a little verbal magic, I will now reverse your opinions!
1) The concern that it would make people more invisible and thus depersonalizes the game overall (key predicate!) is sometimes true. But check this out! By making it a condition whether or not names are displayed, it in fact makes things more personal because there is a reason to get to know someone. Building trust begins to become more important, especially in grey space, because you don't know whether or not person X is regarded as a pirate by Y% of people. You would have to judge on personal experience, and through their actions.
Here's a quote. "I rarely talk to or am talked at by people I pass in my travels, except for a "good fight" after a battle." Which is because people already know everything they need to about you, right down to how good a pilot your PK/death ratio says you are. Get this; the only use for communication is in fact to gather information. You could tag on people's e-mail address, and credit card information to their handles in VO, but the only extra conversation it would get you would be from marketers. Logic used; taking something away in fact makes it more valuable.
That this is merely a game, and not reality proves that comparing it to reality in any way is irrelevant. We can neither decide that it should be absolutely like reality, or nothing like reality, because it's simply a game and, as we all obviously know, doesn't have any bearing on reailty. Therefor to argue that it should remain absurd, even in the face of a change which might make things more fun (key predicate!) is as foolish as to suggest things remain realistic under the same condition. Logic used; demonstrating that one person's (supposed) reasoning is flawed does not demonstrate your own is valid.
That adding an option for players to be anonymous or to broadcast their identity, with certain in-game responses to each would be detrimental to roleplaying is a situation which I can hardly ever see as happening. Regradless of it more closely paralleing reality, it adds additional functionality to the game (key predicate!) to which users can express themselves. I'm sure you have your reasoning behind that obligatory statement, but how the value of masking one's identity be ignored in the roleplaying sense? Furthermore, how can we have such succulant situations as "Reveal yourself, or you will be forcibly removed from this sector" and "I'm looking for a pirate around these parts, flies a Corvult with double sunflares. Maybe you've seen 'em?" without some kind of anonymity? Pretend, that's how. And that's lame. Logic used; don't be lame.
Good arguments.
what about pirates? when I see another ship in a wh sector im supposed to just guess whether or not they are a pirate? cause their names are the only way I can recognize them as a pirate.
What about when they hail you demanding money? :P
No need for anonymity in the options menu.
Maybe an addon that could scramble the date or something and make the person targeting you unable yo see your name/stats,
but an option in the menu like this dude suggested is ridiculous.
Maybe an addon that could scramble the date or something and make the person targeting you unable yo see your name/stats,
but an option in the menu like this dude suggested is ridiculous.
This idea is excellent
/me forfeits respect
/me uses thread necromancy +2 against VO
Maybe, although once you hit someone everyone would see who you are. Otherwise it wouldn't even be fair.
/me uses thread necromancy +2 against VO
Maybe, although once you hit someone everyone would see who you are. Otherwise it wouldn't even be fair.
It'd be fair if you could see ship names, but not necessarily pilots'. Yes, the could go grief you and then scrap their ship to mask their identity; in that case they'd still lose their ship though. And remember that this protection can work for you just as much as against you. While veterans might prefer to fly around with their names intact, letting the universe know not to mess with them, newer players could have a serious advantage by covering up their names. For example, a pirate might then think "Ah, an unidentified 'Taur. I wonder if I can defeat them." as opposed to "It's Oh Dear. I know he can't fight, so I'm going to pursue! >=D".
I'd say VO's declined into a system of elitism. Rookies are immediately blasted about which tactics to use, and not to use. If they screw up, they can be put on a guild's shitlist, like the Vipers, and hunted down without prejudice. This can be troubling when the guild's trial system usually constitutes asking people on 100 whether such and such a person did things which therefor make them a "pirate", not a necessarily stalwart procedure. Don't get me wrong, I think the concept for that guild is sweet. Personally, I am totally for elitism. But for those against the idea of veterans running the show through threats and shame, this thread is for you.
No doubt if this thread were implemented, grey space would quickly become the haven for criminal activity as opposed to a gentleman's dueling club.
I'd say VO's declined into a system of elitism. Rookies are immediately blasted about which tactics to use, and not to use. If they screw up, they can be put on a guild's shitlist, like the Vipers, and hunted down without prejudice. This can be troubling when the guild's trial system usually constitutes asking people on 100 whether such and such a person did things which therefor make them a "pirate", not a necessarily stalwart procedure. Don't get me wrong, I think the concept for that guild is sweet. Personally, I am totally for elitism. But for those against the idea of veterans running the show through threats and shame, this thread is for you.
No doubt if this thread were implemented, grey space would quickly become the haven for criminal activity as opposed to a gentleman's dueling club.
QUOTE:
"It's Oh Dear. I know he can't fight, so I'm going to pursue! >=D"
ENDQUOTE
1) I hardly ever, if ever at all, drive a taur.
2) Oh, shut up -.-
"It's Oh Dear. I know he can't fight, so I'm going to pursue! >=D"
ENDQUOTE
1) I hardly ever, if ever at all, drive a taur.
2) Oh, shut up -.-