Author |
Message |
Andy
Joined: Sun May 09, 2010 3:49 pm Posts: 253
|
Please make some changes to this.. Suggestions: A. Limit the number of legions a player can join in a 72 hr period to 2. B. (Might already be the case) Prevent a non-loyal player from taking posted planets. C. Prevent a non-loyal player from browsing ships or sending pm's to other players in the legion. D. Prevent non-loyal members from browsing the base defenses. E. Give us a way to perma ban ships from the legion..
|
Mon May 13, 2013 11:37 am |
|
 |
Devastation
Joined: Tue Dec 06, 2011 3:17 pm Posts: 3632 Location: Gone.
|
No, no, no, no, and no.
Open recruitment comes with a risk. You either use it, or you don't. Your choice.
_________________ Devastation - Rank 1209 - Proud Officer of Imperium of Namalak
|
Mon May 13, 2013 11:47 am |
|
 |
FerrusManus
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2010 12:32 am Posts: 4524
|
XxDarthDexterxX wrote: No, no, no, no, and no.
Open recruitment comes with a risk. You either use it, or you don't. Your choice. Yes, it has been released like this and so should not be improved upon. Improving something just doesn't make sense, Andy.
|
Mon May 13, 2013 12:53 pm |
|
 |
ICBLF
Joined: Sat Jul 02, 2011 6:52 pm Posts: 1663 Location: where the dead ships dwell
|
FerrusManus wrote: Yes, it has been released like this and so should not be improved upon. Improving something just doesn't make sense, Andy. Improving something? I'm all for it. Changing a number of other things in the game to accommodate the fact that people want to auto-accept anyone into their legions without risk? That's not improving something, that's harming other aspects. I don't want to be mean about it, but the risks inherent to accepting anyone into your legion without review should have been obvious, and if those risks still escaped notice in some legions, it's a 3 day learning curve and then the legions know first hand.
_________________ 
|
Mon May 13, 2013 5:24 pm |
|
 |
FerrusManus
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2010 12:32 am Posts: 4524
|
ICBLF wrote: FerrusManus wrote: Yes, it has been released like this and so should not be improved upon. Improving something just doesn't make sense, Andy. Improving something? I'm all for it. Changing a number of other things in the game to accommodate the fact that people want to auto-accept anyone into their legions without risk? That's not improving something, that's harming other aspects. I don't want to be mean about it, but the risks inherent to accepting anyone into your legion without review should have been obvious, and if those risks still escaped notice in some legions, it's a 3 day learning curve and then the legions know first hand. How is banning certain players from joining hurting other aspects? How would having some sort of probationary member status would other aspects of the game? It's easy to say these people don't believe in improving things when they shoot down ideas for no other reason than "that's how it works".
|
Mon May 13, 2013 5:43 pm |
|
 |
Devastation
Joined: Tue Dec 06, 2011 3:17 pm Posts: 3632 Location: Gone.
|
Think of it like this:
Your legion is a car. You can either leave it locked, or unlocked. Leave it unlocked, and you have no control over who can simply get in, hot-wire it, and drive away. Lock it, and you won't have problem.
_________________ Devastation - Rank 1209 - Proud Officer of Imperium of Namalak
|
Mon May 13, 2013 5:53 pm |
|
 |
FerrusManus
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2010 12:32 am Posts: 4524
|
XxDarthDexterxX wrote: Think of it like this:
Your legion is a car. You can either leave it locked, or unlocked. Leave it unlocked, and you have no control over who can simply get in, hot-wire it, and drive away. Lock it, and you won't have problem. Right, and just like a car, your Legion isn't in a game where a developer can make a few simple changes to make it so you could deny only certain people. You can't use an analogy to make a point, because an analogy isn't the same thing. Use analogies only to make points clearer, but if your argument rests on "legion = car" (which it does) then your point will be unsuccessful.
|
Mon May 13, 2013 5:58 pm |
|
 |
Devastation
Joined: Tue Dec 06, 2011 3:17 pm Posts: 3632 Location: Gone.
|
My point is that you shouldn't use the open option.
_________________ Devastation - Rank 1209 - Proud Officer of Imperium of Namalak
|
Mon May 13, 2013 6:10 pm |
|
 |
FerrusManus
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2010 12:32 am Posts: 4524
|
XxDarthDexterxX wrote: My point is that you shouldn't use the open option. I know. You just weren't making that point. EDIT: Nope, my bad. Your point was that the open option shouldn't be fixed to make it usable, and that's the point you weren't making. Of course, you also weren't making the point that you shouldn't use it, but I don't care about that part, as whether or not you think people should use it makes no difference to other people having a usable feature.
|
Mon May 13, 2013 6:13 pm |
|
 |
Devastation
Joined: Tue Dec 06, 2011 3:17 pm Posts: 3632 Location: Gone.
|
FerrusManus wrote: XxDarthDexterxX wrote: My point is that you shouldn't use the open option. I know. You just weren't making that point. EDIT: Nope, my bad. Your point was that the open option shouldn't be fixed to make it usable, and that's the point you weren't making. Of course, you also weren't making the point that you shouldn't use it, but I don't care about that part, as whether or not you think people should use it makes no difference to other people having a usable feature. My point was that you shouldn't leave it open. Just like a car, you should do as much as you can to protect your legion. If you want to take the risk of leaving the legion set at open, then that's on the leaders. It is a double-edged sword. As for Dan "fixing" it, I do not want that.
_________________ Devastation - Rank 1209 - Proud Officer of Imperium of Namalak
|
Mon May 13, 2013 6:30 pm |
|
 |
FerrusManus
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2010 12:32 am Posts: 4524
|
XxDarthDexterxX wrote: FerrusManus wrote: XxDarthDexterxX wrote: My point is that you shouldn't use the open option. I know. You just weren't making that point. EDIT: Nope, my bad. Your point was that the open option shouldn't be fixed to make it usable, and that's the point you weren't making. Of course, you also weren't making the point that you shouldn't use it, but I don't care about that part, as whether or not you think people should use it makes no difference to other people having a usable feature. My point was that you shouldn't leave it open. Just like a car, you should do as much as you can to protect your legion. If you want to take the risk of leaving the legion set at open, then that's on the leaders. It is a double-edged sword. As for Dan "fixing" it, I do not want that. Your point in your first post was that Dan shouldn't fix it because it should work the way it does now (not much of a point, obviously). At the very least, that is what you said, even if not what you meant.
|
Mon May 13, 2013 6:33 pm |
|
 |
ICBLF
Joined: Sat Jul 02, 2011 6:52 pm Posts: 1663 Location: where the dead ships dwell
|

FerrusManus wrote: How is banning certain players from joining hurting other aspects? How would having some sort of probationary member status would other aspects of the game? It's easy to say these people don't believe in improving things when they shoot down ideas for no other reason than "that's how it works". Thanks for that last sentence straw man, it strongly implies that you have a genuine interest in winning an argument, not solving a problem. Harms of banning - GrouchyLeader assumes RandomShip is a multi, a spy, or they just woke up on the wrong side of the bed. Now, in perpetuity, even if the other leaders (and officers, depending on how it's set up) don't agree with GrouchyLeader about RandomShip, RandomShip can never join the legion. You are in fact suggesting a way of permanently burning bridges as a possible "improvement". I foresee a hundred times more forums posts about mistakenly or maliciously banned ships than open recruiting has created. Think of a Blitz/MonteChristo/etc (uncertain on the spelling of their names) scenario with a perma ban option. Harms of a probationary member status - I want to share an unoccupied planet with a trader/friend/sublegion ship. They come over. Now they have to wait 3 days for me to share with them, and during those three days (unless you're not arguing for the "probationary status" represented above) they can't comm anyone in legion? What if they came over to build defense/attack/hull/shield mods on the base? Am I missing something, or are you so investing in the other side of this that you didn't even stop to consider the damages caused by any one of the OPs "improvements"?
_________________ 
|
Mon May 13, 2013 6:36 pm |
|
 |
FerrusManus
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2010 12:32 am Posts: 4524
|

ICBLF wrote: FerrusManus wrote: How is banning certain players from joining hurting other aspects? How would having some sort of probationary member status would other aspects of the game? It's easy to say these people don't believe in improving things when they shoot down ideas for no other reason than "that's how it works". Harms of banning - GrouchyLeader assumes RandomShip is a multi, a spy, or they just woke up on the wrong side of the bed. Now, in perpetuity, even if the other leaders (and officers, depending on how it's set up) don't agree with GrouchyLeader about RandomShip, RandomShip can never join the legion. You are in fact suggesting a way of permanently burning bridges as a possible "improvement". I foresee a hundred times more forums posts about mistakenly or maliciously banned ships than open recruiting has created. Think of a Blitz/MonteChristo/etc (uncertain on the spelling of their names) scenario with a perma ban option. Harms of a probationary member status - I want to share an unnoccupied planet with a trader/friend/sublegion ship. They come over. Now they have to wait 3 days for me to share with them, and during those three days (unless you're not arguing for the "probationary status" represented above) they can't comm anyone in legion? Banning: It's no worse than the current allowance of banning people from sending comms to your Legion or your own ship. Of course, I would support a way to manage these bans so it can be changed in the future. Admittedly, we still don't have a way to unban people from comms, so it might not be likely to happen for this. Probationary status: This would be a "position", if you will, and thus an Officer could promote them to member. If you have a trader over, they can come over the regular way and the Officer/Leader who let them in could immediately promote them. Traders already need an Officer/Leader to let them in, so this would result in no time lost for a trader, while giving the leadership a chance to approve any new permanent members (which would have been useful, and had been suggested, even before this update). ICBLF wrote: Thanks for that last sentence straw man, it strongly implies that you have a genuine interest in winning an argument, not solving a problem. You could infer that, but you could also infer that I'm annoyed with people saying "things should stay the way they are because that's the way it is" (which is actually the case). ICBLF wrote: Am I missing something, or are you so investing in the other side of this that you didn't even stop to consider the damages caused by any one of the OPs "improvements"? I believe I could say the same to you; funny how that works.
|
Mon May 13, 2013 6:45 pm |
|
 |
ICBLF
Joined: Sat Jul 02, 2011 6:52 pm Posts: 1663 Location: where the dead ships dwell
|

FerrusManus wrote: Probationary status: This would be a "position", if you will, and thus an Officer could promote them to member. I could support that kind of probationary position, though it is not enumerated in the original suggestions, which I would still be against if unmodified. FerrusManus wrote: ICBLF wrote: Thanks for that last sentence straw man, it strongly implies that you have a genuine interest in winning an argument, not solving a problem. You could infer that, but you could also infer that I'm annoyed with people saying "things should stay the way they are because that's the way it is" (which is actually the case). I take it you have not seen me respond to other suggestions. If you care to review, you'll see your statement is far from my position about suggestions in general, and I even stated a claim in this very thread ("That's not improving something, that's harming other aspects.") that contradicts that representation of my position in this particular case. So yeah, I could read it as you being annoyed if I assume that you didn't read my whole post. I'm not sure which you prefer, me inferring that you are misrepresenting me to win an argument, or me inferring that your annoyed at me because you didn't read what I wrote? FerrusManus wrote: ICBLF wrote: Am I missing something, or are you so investing in the other side of this that you didn't even stop to consider the damages caused by any one of the OPs "improvements"? I believe I could say the same to you; funny how that works. Hmm, I'd like to see where I dismissed the other side without considering the consequences of a proposal. Funny how that doesn't work.
_________________ 
|
Mon May 13, 2013 7:36 pm |
|
 |
playret0195x
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2011 9:48 pm Posts: 2251
|
Dan could have ninja updated it by now if he wanted to. Odds are he doesn't want to fix it.
Open recruitment does come at a risk. It's like letting a stranger walk into your house and you have no idea of his/her background info.
_________________
|
Mon May 13, 2013 8:53 pm |
|
 |
Spaceman
Joined: Wed Oct 24, 2012 5:30 pm Posts: 903
|
playret0195x wrote: Dan could have ninja updated it by now if he wanted to. Odds are he doesn't want to fix it.
Open recruitment does come at a risk. It's like letting a stranger walk into your house and you have no idea of his/her background info. It's not so much the fact they can auto join,chances are if they requested you would of let them in anyway, it's more of even if they leave or you kick them out they can keep rejoining.
_________________  Click banner to join legion
|
Mon May 13, 2013 8:56 pm |
|
 |
FerrusManus
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2010 12:32 am Posts: 4524
|
.
Last edited by FerrusManus on Mon May 13, 2013 11:49 pm, edited 2 times in total.
|
Mon May 13, 2013 11:42 pm |
|
 |
ICBLF
Joined: Sat Jul 02, 2011 6:52 pm Posts: 1663 Location: where the dead ships dwell
|
FerrusManus wrote: That was my mistake in being unclear. "These people" didn't refer to you, but rather to Darth (and others in other threads), as he was the one "arguing" that. Fair enough, I do agree that there is a problem with the amount of flippant dismissal in the suggestions forum.
_________________ 
|
Mon May 13, 2013 11:47 pm |
|
 |
Devastation
Joined: Tue Dec 06, 2011 3:17 pm Posts: 3632 Location: Gone.
|
I wrote up a reply, but then chrome crashed. I ain't even gonna bother anymore.
_________________ Devastation - Rank 1209 - Proud Officer of Imperium of Namalak
|
Mon May 13, 2013 11:49 pm |
|
 |
FerrusManus
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2010 12:32 am Posts: 4524
|
playret0195x wrote: Dan could have ninja updated it by now if he wanted to. Odds are he doesn't want to fix it. Eh, considering every update is a week late, I'd say it'd take at least two weeks for the devs to "ninja" something : P
|
Mon May 13, 2013 11:50 pm |
|
 |
|
Who is online |
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 28 guests |
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum
|
|