Yes, I was referring to your response to jamesbuhls. Read jamesbuhls's short post, then read your response to it immediately below. Pay careful attention to his first sentence, which you actually quoted from. The basic structure of his sentence is like this: "It is not an X+Y, it is an X+Z". You appear to have conveniently forgotten that the X was a part of the second half of the sentence, making it seem as though he argued that X was invalid as well as Y when in fact it was only Y he had an issue with.

Perhaps this was simple carelessness and not intentional deception. I doubt that but whatever.

@ryan

[[[You, are the one who tried to once again position yourself as the sainted savior of VO]]]

1. I am far from a saint
2. I'm just good in this stuff. Is that a felony or something ? Judging from your words it seems so.
.
.
[[[/victim of infinite bashing and trolling]]]

Where did you read that ? Acutally i only said that USUALLY my suggestion threads turn into trolling and/or shouting contest, which is true and this thread is a perfect proof of it.

You have to agree that my threads more often turn into mess than anybody else's threads, so what i have said is true.
.
.
[[[ (as you do ANYTIME ANYONE DOESN'T LIKE YOUR IDEAS).]]]

Little correction.

It's not "ANYTIME ANYONE DOESN'T LIKE MY IDEAS" - it is "ANYTIME ANYONE DOESN'T LIKE MY IDEAS WITHOUT GIVING ANY CONSTRUCTIVE ARGUMENTS".

No one is required to explain why they don't like your ideas, your belief that they are is what turns your threads hostile.

"I'm just good in this stuff."

Really? I must have missed all your ideas that were implemented. Oh wait, NONE of your ideas have ever been put into VO. Thats odd as you're so good at this.

@ryan

[[[No one is required to explain why they don't like your ideas, your belief that they are is what turns your threads hostile.]]]

You read my will to get to the bottom of things as being hostile. This is insanity.
.
.
[[[Really? I must have missed all your ideas that were implemented. Oh wait, NONE of your ideas have ever been put into VO. Thats odd as you're so good at this.]]]

1. I am good at designing extremely efficient & compact solutions, not on "getting my ideas approved for inclusion in VO". That is entirely different topic.

My fault probably, i should have defined precisely what I am talking about.

2. Another thing is that if my ideas are good or not has nothing to do with the fact if they will ever be implemented. Quality of an idea doesn't define if the devs decide to implement it. They have their own vision of the game after all.

3. It takes long time for devs to implement even simple things here (not even saying about more complex things - that takes years), and I am playing VO for only a year (and making suggestions for about 9 months). So it is completely normal that i didn't get anything implemented. I am not here long enough to influence anything.

4. Actually, @Inc confirmed that he is implementing one of my ideas (automated turrets), and also has confirmed that some of other my ideas should be in the game (system blinking on map, npc pirates, many more convoys). Yeah, i realize that somebody has probably suggested that things before me, but nevertheless i invented them myself independently without any help.

"Actually, @Inc confirmed that he is implementing one of my ideas (automated turrets)"

Oh yeah, I forgot about that idea put forth by...me, Alloh and about two dozen other people before you.

@ryan

[[[Oh yeah, I forgot about that idea put forth by...me, Alloh and about two dozen other people before you.]]]

Who cares ?
I had the idea myself, independently - so that confirms the fact that my ideas can be good and are compatibile with the devs' vision of the game.

And still, as far as i can remember many people didn't like my automated turret idea. (let me check that)

----
EDIT:

http://www.vendetta-online.com/x/msgboard/3/24029

I checked, 50% people disliked the idea. Namely:
Alloh: -1
Pizzasgood: +1

50/50 ratio.

Who cares? I never said your ideas can't be good. I have given examples of people liking your ideas. This idea however is ludicrous.

@ryan

[[[Who cares? I never said your ideas can't be good. I have given examples of people liking your ideas. This idea however is ludicrous.]]]

I need some time to respond to your previous precise arguments and other posts.... Stand by.

Why? I don't like the idea. Nothing you can say is going to change my mind.

Actually PoL, you are mistaken about the target of my +1 in that thread. I was referring to the excerpt of Alloh's post that I quoted. I didn't say anything regarding your OP.

@Pizzasgood

[[[Actually PoL, you are mistaken about the target of my +1 in that thread. I was referring to the excerpt of Alloh's post that I quoted. I didn't say anything regarding your OP.]]]

Ah, that's even better. So actually most people didn't like the idea and i was right.
.
.
@ryan

[[[Why? I don't like the idea. Nothing you can say is going to change my mind.]]]

I do not plan to change your mind as i already figured out that most of the times discussion doesn't change anybody's mind if he is already convinced otherwise. It's only the real life examples of working ideas that can convince people.

I cannot make you like the idea, but i can prove that your arguments are incorrect/illogical with ease.

Well, you've failed to so far, but I suppose you can try.

I think it has some good points with the initial idea but may have been flamed from there on. So with my special asbestos pants! I was hoping that we could use capital ships for trading or maybe a player owned station.

Dearest Rats you may never need to move goods again if you can get what you need locally !

It would most definitely add another aspect to the game for example if a you could actually trade goods in local areas near to the demand. An example would be weapons available in Sedina or the odd manufacturing components for crafting missions on your door step.

We will have the ships soon (tm) but that is another post;

Using cappies for trade (especially Connies) or having a P2P area in stations is in fact a great idea. Much requested IIRC.

Ok, what I see as left of all this lovely debate:

-Player-owned shops are great, but inside stations.
-Player-owned cappies should work as a mobile Conquerable Station. This include previous topic, shops.

New idea resulted:
-COMBAT-oriented cappies should be able to SELL RR (repair and reload). Price=zero results in free RR.
-TRADE-oriented cappies should have player-run shops, for commodities. Just like stations' ones. But not offer RR.

@ryan reign

OK, i finally found time to respond to all your detailed arguments.
.
.
[[[1: "- To make things simple, buoy would be indestructible,"
Ridiculous.]]]

Not ridiculous. This is a possible simplification to make stuff be easier to implement.
A buoy would simply be treated the same way as a roid.

I was simply thinking that it's easier for the devs to put a new type of roid into game, however i might be a little wrong here.
.
.
[[[2:" and the items bought would appear out of thin air, and be automatically loaded into buyer's cargo hold."
Ridiculous.]]]

Simplification for the sake of features quickly appearing in the game may be good or bad, but certainly is NOT "ridiculous".
Haven't you noticed yet how long does it take the devs to implement just ANYTHING in the game ?
I'm taking a correction for that - separating easy from difficult stuff in levels, so we could have something working quickly, and more polished later.

At first the items may appear out of thin air in space next to player, but you can easily add warp effects later so it will be rationally explained, realistic & perfect.
The items could appear similiar way training drones warp in in training missions.
.
.
[[[3:"- Buoys are small floating ships in the shape of cube, sphere, octahedron or tetrahedron"
Ugly. VO needs more polish not less.]]]

Already answerred to that. With proper textures, bump & reflection maps even a simple shape can look extraordinary.
Damn it man, nobody is saying that they should be FLAT, BORING ONE COLOR shapes ! Of course they can be properly embellished or something, but the basic shape can be simple.
We don't need complex things in the INITIAL implementation.

Another thing is that the buoys could be "borgish" in appearance, and that would certainly be cool.
.
.
[[[4:- "Buoys are small floating ships, have its own power source, and strong shielding"
If they're small, they don't get shields.]]]

No problem. This is just a minor adjustment.
So they don't get shields. They get thick, very damage resistant & self-repairing-over-time armor.
Fixed.
.
.
[[[5:"- Buoys can be destroyed using a lot of firepower, but:"
They're small, why do they need so much to take them out?]]]

It's actually easy to answer that question.
They are specifically designed to be small & tough for obvious reasons.
Also, they have all unnecessary technology & equipment removed from them, so there is more space for thick armor & self-repair device.
.
.
[[[6:"- Buoys do not store items or credits themselves, because it would be too easy to steal from them."
VO has no room for magic]]]

And no magic here.
Buoys would actually be simple communication devices that store the list of items for sale, and communicate with external jump-pusher devices that jump/warp the items to the buoys location.
So:
- Items are warped by external device (such as capship, station, or other specialized device)
- Credits in VO are stored electronically anyway, so no change here
.
.
[[[7:"- Buoys have a "jump callback" device, which summons items from another place in the same system"
See above.]]]

See above.
.
.
[[[8:"Otherwise there is no way to steal items or credits from buoy."
Ridiculous.]]]

Ridiculous ?
Simply practical.

Also: see above.
.
.
[[[9: It's been suggested many times before, in better and easier ways.]]]

I seriously doubt so. Can you give me some evidence, are this just empty words ?
.
.
[[[10: "- Every player is limited to have MAX 10 buoys total"
Limiting.]]]

No problem. Then there can be no limit, but the buoys could require regular maintenance (refueling with energy etc), so buoys which are unattended simply die naturally after few days.
But i seriously don't think it's a good idea because people will spam space with buoys.

But perhaps another way of limiting without having hard limits can be designed.
.
.
[[[11:"- Every buoy is limited to 3 days residing in single point of space without player interaction."
No logical reason.]]]

Perfect logical reason: Refuelling/recharging. See above.
The buoys are so small that they don't have their own unlimited source of energy. They require recharges by the owner..
.
.
[[[12:"After the time is up, owner has to interact with the buoy and "renew" it. Otherwise, buoy disappears automatically."
Limiting and no logical reason.]]]

See above.
.
.
[[[13: Although P2P trade is important and need to be fixed, this seems like it would distract the devs from things that are more important.]]]

Of course the trade itself is not critical element. But increasing the amount of interaction between players certainly is.
And the reason for that is because space IS empty, and FEELS empty.
And this is the EXACT reason why most of MMO games ALREADY have all the features that VO is missing, and which I am proposing.
.
.
[[[There is a reason absolutely none of your ideas have ever or will ever make it in game. They are over complicated and under useful.]]]

This is foolish saying produced by a critically limited mind.

Talking to you is like explaining advanced mathemathics to a 3-year old child.

Things that are outright absolutely obvious to me require 10-pages of explaining for you. I mean how is that possible ?
This is insanity.

Seriously, dude: what the fuck is wrong with you ? Do you actually not understand why this will be a good idea ? Or perhaps you're deliberately fucking with me because you think that I suck and you simply want to kick my ass ?
Does everything on this forum have to be about the fight of me vs the rest of you ? Can't we just cooperate for a moment ?

+1

Oookay, this hasn't been constructive in quite some time, Perhaps you could hash this out on a private channel or something - but not here please.