(03-10-2020, 02:49 AM)Victor Steiner Wrote: Yes and no, it's a location code with no references. So it's trial and error for moving something, really precise movements are difficult to implement.
The command you're looking for is /pos.
I maintain that "technical problems" with requests have overwhelmingly been non-problems for the better part of a decade.
Code:
/** Print current position */
bool MiscCmds::UserCmd_Pos(uint iClientID, const wstring &wscCmd, const wstring &wscParam, const wchar_t *usage)
{
HKPLAYERINFO p;
if (HkGetPlayerInfo((const wchar_t*) Players.GetActiveCharacterName(iClientID), p, false)!=HKE_OK || p.iShip==0)
{
PrintUserCmdText(iClientID, L"ERR Not in space");
return true;
}
That is to say, your argument is invalid because you have a vested interest in redacting or subverting the rules. Furthermore,
even if it was a fallacy, that doesn't mean my initial post was logically incorrect.
A way a lone a last a loved a long the riverrun, past Eve and Adam's, from swerve of shore to bend of bay,
brings us by a commodius vicus of recirculation back to Howth Castle and Environs.
That is to say, your argument is invalid because you have a vested interest in redacting or subverting the rules. Furthermore,
even if it was a fallacy, that doesn't mean my initial post was logically incorrect.
He called the concept of sanctionlancer cancerous. Your entire response to him is predicated on an attack on his character in order to invalidate his argument, which, does not fall under the "fallacy fallacy." Attacking his character, for being sanctioned several times - therefore supposedly invalidating his argument - is an ad hominem, and forms the backbone of your response to him. This is what we like to call a "non-argument." It is also very poorly thought out, given the fact that pretty much every user in this thread has been sanctioned at one point or another, barring a few select examples.
Try demonstrating why simply moving bases is not preferable to creating a greater sanction-load than there already is, if you are actually trying to convince people of something, instead of arguing against people you don't like for the sake of not liking them.
If you cannot take having something you say be called nonviable, regardless of syntax, then you might want to consider not "contributing" in an open forum.
User was banned for: They will know.
Time left: (Permanent)
(03-10-2020, 02:30 AM)Victor Steiner Wrote: Perhaps if the original owners actually took the time to think about what they were doing, we wouldn't have this issue.
Moving a base because someone didn't think it through, or didn't care to is not the dev's fault. Moving a base is a lot of hard work for little gain. That's why it's done so infrequently. Perhaps next time PoB owners will take that into consideration before actually building a base in a stupid location.
And it's not far, at all, to give someone a base and then turn around with a ''jokes on you, you have to move it now ''. That's most unfair and I don't have any sympathy for Libgov getting warned over that. Seems like an ''old boys'' club. ''You're not one of us so you can't have nice things''.
(03-10-2020, 02:30 AM)Victor Steiner Wrote: Perhaps if the original owners actually took the time to think about what they were doing, we wouldn't have this issue.
Moving a base because someone didn't think it through, or didn't care to is not the dev's fault. Moving a base is a lot of hard work for little gain. That's why it's done so infrequently. Perhaps next time PoB owners will take that into consideration before actually building a base in a stupid location.
And it's not far, at all, to give someone a base and then turn around with a ''jokes on you, you have to move it now ''. That's most unfair and I don't have any sympathy for Libgov getting warned over that. Seems like an ''old boys'' club. ''You're not one of us so you can't have nice things''.
It's always amusing to see people going clever without checking facts first.
(03-10-2020, 02:30 AM)Victor Steiner Wrote: Perhaps if the original owners actually took the time to think about what they were doing, we wouldn't have this issue.
Moving a base because someone didn't think it through, or didn't care to is not the dev's fault. Moving a base is a lot of hard work for little gain. That's why it's done so infrequently. Perhaps next time PoB owners will take that into consideration before actually building a base in a stupid location.
And it's not far, at all, to give someone a base and then turn around with a ''jokes on you, you have to move it now ''. That's most unfair and I don't have any sympathy for Libgov getting warned over that. Seems like an ''old boys'' club. ''You're not one of us so you can't have nice things''.
You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about as you are absolutely uninformed about situation that you are absolutely wrong about.
The POB in question has changed ownership from member of 5th| to mercenaries. After the ownership changed, it was decided to kindly ask the base to be moved 5k away. This is absolutely fair and absolutely reasonable.
Moving POB takes a minute or two. Not warning someone over for legit roleplay requires even less effort.
In general, refusal to move POBs after there was precedence seems to be far worse than doing RP and asking someone to move POB when situation changes.
just get rid of rules about bases and let them be a wild west, like they were when they were very very first implemented
no more attack declarations, no more IFF restrictions, no more core restrictions, slap a pricetag on move requests, ez pz