Umm yeah, you could at least put in a smiley .

-_- I JUST said that I have been. ^ "...since I have and would have been listening to your input from the beginning..."[/quote]

Thx for the suggestion I'll be sure to do that more in the future.

"...since I have and would have been listening to your input from the beginning..."
What I meant was that I have been listening to his input from the beginning and I would have even without the sarcasm, plz try to read my posts more thoroughly even if they may be a bit hard to understand sometimes due to the way I say things, and in return I'll try to convey my msgs more clearly in the future.

Oh they're easy to understand, just long, and I'm tired. I'm sorry I missed that bit, looks like both of us could use some work lol.

Lol, true that. I need some coffee!

Perhaps a bit of clarification and revision is necessary for the sake of any further discussion on the suggestion I've posted. First, the clarification and then the revision.

Everything that you have said up to this point for the sake of arguing my suggestion has been running under the assumption that there can only be 1 specific accident that can occur when doing something dangerous, which is completely unrealistic to believe that.

Hypothetically speaking: If a group of workers go to the "XTS-9 Refinement Facility to do their dangerous jobs so that they can earn a living and one of those workers happens to fall in a vat of XTS-9 and die then I'm sure you're right, people will have learned from that mistake and by the time the surviving workers come in to work tomorrow there will be a railing along the edge of the vat to prevent that same exact accident from happening ever again. But if those same workers come back to their dangerous jobs at the facility again day, after day, after day, then one of them could have a completely different accident because surprise, surprise, it's DANGEROUS! Maybe they had some heavy equipment fall on their head because it wasn't secured or something else happened by mistake and they got killed.

The very essence of what makes an accident an accident is that it wasn't supposed to happen, but it did anyways. That's what an accident is and if a person continues to do something that is dangerous then they continue to run the risk of having an accident even after people learn from their mistakes and try to correct them. It makes no sense that a concept that simple would be so hard for someone to grasp. There really is no rocket science to it.

My suggestion was not "just so I can get a medal". I know full well that you are meant to earn your medals and my suggestion is not just some proposal that I'm using to attempt to get them without a whole lot of effort. You seem to be assuming (yet again) that my suggestion would allow for people to get 8 crew members to die without any need to spend more then just a few energies worth of attempts on the mission when in actuality it would work in a MUCH more slowly effecting and gradual way.

One full completion of the mission requires 1000 energy exactly. Doing so would provide only a 1% bonus for EACH completion under the implementation of my suggestion. At that rate of increase I wouldn't really say that it would be "getting them without a whole lot of effort" since to have a significant bonus you'd have to literally spend several thousand energy just to have a small 5 or 6 percent bonus to your chances. As for the removal of it after each person has it, you seem to be ignoring why I suggested that. It was so at later levels of completion people wouldn't get bogged down by a ridiculously high amount of crew deaths in their attempt to get XTS-9.

Now the revision.

I understand that if a player already had many completions on the mission before the medals were released then my suggestion would allow for them to get the medal easily, so to remedy this issue I suggest that instead of merely allowing the percentage bonus to be based on how many completions a person currently has, it be based on how many completions of the mission a person has accrued after the medals were released. So if a person has 15 completions on the mission but only 5 of them were done after the release of medals then that person would only get a 5% bonus instead of 15%. That should help even out any issue with making it "too easy".

Please keep in mind that from the very beginning I only suggested this so that the players who are having an extremely hard time getting this medal due to very bad luck could have a minor boost to their chances in the event that their luck still hadn't changed after many, many completions of the mission. I have no issues what so ever with the random number generators for this game, I'm just trying to make a suggestion to help prevent people from getting too discouraged or upset when playing this part of GL.

Perhaps now someone besides KxG Ryoko can offer their input as to whether or not this would be an overpowering factor in the game and if so some advice on how to improve it. Thank you for taking the time to read this either way.

Ok, so kill 8 crew members... You have a 50/50 shot at those deaths being crew that can be replaced ONLY by using rank points. Sorry, but +5 mining isn't that important to me. I'll keep my crew intact thank you very much. If I need XTS9 for something, THEN I'll worry about it.

Now, increasing the chances of death until you complete the medal requirements and then returning them to normal afterwards is "making the achievement easier." Doesn't matter how you rationalize it, that's what you're suggesting and it should absolutely not be done. And I dare say, it WON'T be done either.

Out of curiosity, how many completions have people done to get the medal, and how much xts acquired? I did 12 completions of the mission and acquired about 200 xts before getting the medal.

Personally as I was doing this mission a bit for the medal, I was thinking to myself well technically can't I just push my crew in if I want them to die that much. So I know how about an extra button next to the complete mission button that let's you automatically kill a crew member?

Ok, your point is valid and your opinion is completely understandable. But just for the record I'm not trying to rationalise it by saying that it won't make it easier, I'm just saying that it won't make it absurdly easy like some people seemed to be thinking.

Lol! So you are suggesting that a person be allowed to kill a crew member successfully after each completion? That's....an interesting idea, but I have a feeling that it's not likely to get much more support than what I'm getting. Thx for your contribution though.

Wait a minute...

So as a corporation, the chance of any random guy dying increases with practice and revision. Hum.

Yes, if someone works for a month, they're more likely to die than if they worked for a day, but with your suggestion it's like if someone worked in... I dunno... medicine for 1 day in the 80s, they'd be more likely to save their patient than in 2012. What's up with that? Oh... you started working after me, you're more likely to die on your first day. Booya!

Actually that logic doesn't fit with what I'm saying. Since what I'm saying isn't based on the time period in question, it's based on how long the time period involved is. So for instance you wouldn't be comparing the 80's to 2012, you'd be comparing how long the patient in the 80's was receiving care compared to how long another patient was receiving care in 2012. Does that make more sense?

I do understand that as time goes by the improvement to safety regulations and advancements in technology allow for dangerous things to be much more safe, but at that point you're stamping a change in time period on to a simple GL mission which would be almost impossible to factor in to the game accurately.

Although for the sake of argument I suppose that's almost exactly what I'm doing. So, if you can suggest an improvement to my idea that would support that factor then be my guest, any and all improvements are quite welcome.

unfortunately, with any task that is repeated frequently, the speed of which the task is completed will increase, while the risk of injury decreases.

so anyway to factor those in, would be to reduce the chance of crew death, while simultaniously reducing the number of rounds to complete the action. which is the exact opposite of what you are looking for.

Good point, so if both of those were to be factored in along with my suggestion then I suppose they would practically negate each other. Or at the very least it would allow for my suggestion to become to overwhelming due to the continued decrease in rounds until completion. At any rate, thank you for your continued contribution to this thread.

no problem~