Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 .. 22 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 3 post(s) |
Haedonism Bot
Revolutionary Front
798
|
Posted - 2014.01.29 16:41:00 -
[601] - Quote
Didn't read all 30 pages, but I will say this. The OPs idea is among the stupidest I ever heard. Don't expect even a comment on it from the devs, I'm sure they have enough to do without responding to every crackpot notion posted on the forums by idiots. everevolutionaryfront.blogspot.com |
Abla Tive
State War Academy Caldari State
29
|
Posted - 2014.01.29 16:48:00 -
[602] - Quote
To get into a mission zone someone has to scan you down and then stalk you by warping to your location.
This snooping followed by stalking behaviour is really creepy and definitely suspicious.
Suspicious behaviour clearly warrants a suspect flag. That is sorta the whole point to *having* a suspect flag.
I support the OP proposal. |
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
379
|
Posted - 2014.01.29 17:58:00 -
[603] - Quote
I have read and re-read the OP, and the resulting threadfail. Of the many things bothing me is this:
It has been stated that placing the flag on anyone warping to the pocket without the missioner's permission allows for many more options not currently available, and that these options have been listed in the OP and subsequent posts.
All I see is 1 additional option: Preemptive attack by the missioner without fear of CONCORD reprisal.
Where are these other options? Preemptive attack is a bad move for a PvE fit mission runner on a PvP fit mission invader. This suggestion will only result in more dead ships and pods held hostage for ransom.
Where is the additional danger and risk for the group being targeted for the change? They don't need any different ship than they currently use (anyone that thinks a frigate is in danger from a battleship in EVE has clearly never heard the word 'tracking', and while light drones work so do smartbombs), and even if they found themselves bothered by drones they circumvent the change with about one additional week's training with a cov-ops cloak. Granted, the cov-ops ship is many times more expensive than what they were required to fly, it's also going to be completely immune to the change and even more efficient at invading missions for grief and profit than previous.
The suggestion does nothing to address the balance issue between mission-objective thieves and the missioners. That is just one of many levels this suggestion fails on. |
Abdul 'aleem
Sumiko Yoshida Corporation
163
|
Posted - 2014.01.29 18:26:00 -
[604] - Quote
My Little Pyongyang wrote:Depending on the composition of the mission the risk of losing items to covops is still fairly high for the unprepared, so your suspect flagging solution is not a one-size-fits-all solution.
Yeah the reason that I deliberately labeled the original thread as a "rebalance" was to acknowledge that a suspect flag for mission invasion is not a complete and total solution to the issue.
It is just intended to mainly even out the risk/reward imbalance that currently exists between the missioners and the griefers (mission item thieves, specifically). Adding more legal options to counter the mission invaders is I think a reasonable way to accomplish this rebalancing, and a simple suspect flag would do that.
The fact that a suspect flag for mission invasion would benefit every missioner in every kind of mission and offer them legal options to counter griefing, is the reason that the thread name was changed.
It was an unintended and totally accidental bonus. There is a suggestion that will make it harder for griefers to grief missioners. Add a Suspect Flag for Mission Invasion
Click "like" in the original post to support it. |
FT Diomedes
The Graduates RAZOR Alliance
337
|
Posted - 2014.01.29 18:38:00 -
[605] - Quote
Dear OP, this is a bad idea and will result in the opposite result you want. Take a knee and punch yourself. Then pray that CCP does not listen to you. http://eveion.blogspot.com/ |
Dun'Gal
Myriad Contractors Inc.
59
|
Posted - 2014.01.29 18:42:00 -
[606] - Quote
OP apparently doesn't realize when to stop posting.
Hint: it's when pretty much every corner of the eve forums has shot down your idea.
It's a good effort (i'm being very generous here,) but a terrible idea. |
Abdul 'aleem
Sumiko Yoshida Corporation
163
|
Posted - 2014.01.29 18:43:00 -
[607] - Quote
Abla Tive wrote:To get into a mission zone someone has to scan you down and then stalk you by warping to your location.
This snooping followed by stalking behaviour is really creepy and definitely suspicious.
Suspicious behaviour clearly warrants a suspect flag. That is sorta the whole point to *having* a suspect flag.
I support the OP proposal.
Thanks for the support.
In real life, trespassing is a crime as many people have pointed out in this thread.
Most rational people agree with you and know that having the game treat it as a "suspicious" act is totally reasonable.
And, the suspect flag would definitely result in increased risk to the griefer due to them then being open to global attack by everyone, everywhere, while the suspect flag is active... definitely is a benefit to the missioners (who right now can have their missions invaded without any legal options to counter at all).
As has been pointed out, right now, griefers can invade a mission pocket whenever they want to and can do their griefer thing (mission item theft included) and enjoy Concord protection because the game doesn't add the appropriate suspect flag for mission invasion.
Thanks again for your ability to see past the lies, deception, fear mongering trolling, thread crapping and spamming that has resulted from the inability to come up with any substantiated reason why this suggestion should not be implemented. There is a suggestion that will make it harder for griefers to grief missioners. Add a Suspect Flag for Mission Invasion
Click "like" in the original post to support it. |
dexington
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
1094
|
Posted - 2014.01.29 19:13:00 -
[608] - Quote
Abdul 'aleem wrote:Thanks again for your ability to see past the lies, deception, fear mongering, trolling, thread crapping and spamming that have resulted from the inability to come up with any substantiated reason as to why this suggestion should not be implemented.
denial is the first step of acceptance... I'm a relatively respectable citizen. Multiple felon perhaps, but certainly not dangerous. |
Abdul 'aleem
Sumiko Yoshida Corporation
163
|
Posted - 2014.01.29 19:58:00 -
[609] - Quote
Mike Voidstar wrote:I have read and re-read the OP, and the resulting threadfail. Of the many things bothing me is this:
It has been stated that placing the flag on anyone warping to the pocket without the missioner's permission allows for many more options not currently available, and that these options have been listed in the OP and subsequent posts.
All I see is 1 additional option: Preemptive attack by the missioner without fear of CONCORD reprisal.
Where are these other options? Preemptive attack is a bad move for a PvE fit mission runner on a PvP fit mission invader. This suggestion will only result in more dead ships and pods held hostage for ransom.
This has been posted, Mike.
Suspect flags are global... if you cannot understand how many possibilities exist from that fact, I cannot help you. The ability for everyone to legally defend and counter-gank mission invaders... yes please. Add a Suspect Flag for Mission Invasion
Click "like" in the original post to support it. |
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
381
|
Posted - 2014.01.29 21:14:00 -
[610] - Quote
Abdul 'aleem wrote:Mike Voidstar wrote:Of the many things bothing me is this:
It has been stated that placing the flag on anyone warping to the pocket without the missioner's permission allows for many more options not currently available, and that these options have been listed in the OP and subsequent posts.
All I see is 1 additional option: Preemptive attack by the missioner without fear of CONCORD reprisal.
Where are these other options?
This has been posted, Mike. Suspect flags are global... if you cannot understand how many possibilities exist from that fact after reading and re-reading this thread as you claim to have done, I cannot help you to. Edit: For everyone else coming into the thread, read posts in and around #223 and again around #232
Feel free to educate me. Point out a single new option available to the missioner other than attack without CONCORD reprisal the flag opens up. Certainly among the many, many possibilities you have been claiming there is one you can name? Go slowly so that all can understand. |
|
Abdul 'aleem
Sumiko Yoshida Corporation
163
|
Posted - 2014.01.29 21:18:00 -
[611] - Quote
Mike Voidstar wrote:
they circumvent the change with about one additional week's training with a cov-ops cloak. Granted, the cov-ops ship is many times more expensive than what they were required to fly
Thanks for acknowledging at least one additional cost increase to the griefer as a result of this suggestion. I agree with your opinion that it would create the need for more training and a higher ISK investment on the part of the griefer than is currently required.
Along with the added global risk of that ship being legally attacked/killed immediately after the decision to mission invade is made, and the continued global risk of being killed even after leaving the mission owner's pocket, this all helps balance out the risk/reward equation. The ability for everyone and their allies to legally counter-gank mission invaders... yes please. Add a Suspect Flag for Mission Invasion
Click "like" in the original post to support it. |
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
381
|
Posted - 2014.01.29 21:56:00 -
[612] - Quote
So.... Not going to give an example of any other options that opened up? Not one?
Ok then. |
Abdul 'aleem
Sumiko Yoshida Corporation
163
|
Posted - 2014.01.29 22:10:00 -
[613] - Quote
Mike Voidstar wrote:So.... Not going to give an example of any other options that opened up? Not one?
Ok then.
Many were identified and posted by other players. If you have questions about any of them or think any of their opinions are invalid, just post and state the facts that support your own opinions.
I believe that the others who posted their perspective on the new opportunities / options that would be created are still following the thread.
But before anyone can do anything, you have to identify which of those posts you don't agree with and start supporting your opinions. The ability for everyone and their allies to legally counter-gank mission invaders... yes please. Add a Suspect Flag for Mission Invasion
Click "like" in the original post to support it. |
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
381
|
Posted - 2014.01.29 22:16:00 -
[614] - Quote
Your claim is that there many new options available to the mission. I have read the thread, and I see only one option, and that one not really viable for missioners unless they want to explode.
Please, educate me. One single option not currently available other than preemtive attack without CONCORD intervention.
You have made claims, I just want to see them substanciated, if at all possible. |
Abdul 'aleem
Sumiko Yoshida Corporation
163
|
Posted - 2014.01.29 22:22:00 -
[615] - Quote
Mike Voidstar wrote:Your claim is that there many new options available to the mission. I have read the thread, and I see only one option, and that one not really viable for missioners unless they want to explode.
Please, educate me. One single option not currently available other than preemtive attack without CONCORD intervention.
You have made claims, I just want to see them substanciated, if at all possible.
Honestly Mike, I don't want to just re-post dead issues. Others have posted their opinions of the opportunities that a suspect flag for mission invasion creates. It's unfair to the readers for you to spam and troll just because you disagree.
If you disagree with any of the benefits that others and myself have posted, just state your case and the supporting facts. The ability for everyone and their allies to legally counter-gank mission invaders... yes please. Add a Suspect Flag for Mission Invasion
Click "like" in the original post to support it. |
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
381
|
Posted - 2014.01.29 22:24:00 -
[616] - Quote
Right. You dont have a single viable benefit.
Thanks for confirming. |
Abdul 'aleem
Sumiko Yoshida Corporation
164
|
Posted - 2014.01.29 22:34:00 -
[617] - Quote
Mike Voidstar wrote:Right. You dont have a single viable benefit.
Thanks for confirming.
If that's your understanding of the impact of a suspect flag that makes the mission invader a legal target to everyone both in and out of the mission pocket, so be it.
You'll just have to accept that others have a better understanding of the impact than you and disagree. The ability for everyone and their allies to legally counter-gank mission invaders... yes please. Add a Suspect Flag for Mission Invasion
Click "like" in the original post to support it. |
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
381
|
Posted - 2014.01.29 22:38:00 -
[618] - Quote
I am asking you for an example of a direct, single, viable alternative not currently available other than preemtive attack. You claim there are many. I have checked and rechecked the thread and see only that one.
No one has given another alternative than preemtive attack. Please, educate me. You claim there are many so this should be simple.
Simply saying there are others without substanciating the claim offers nothing to discuss. I am willing to be convinced, if you can back up your claims in some way. |
Abdul 'aleem
Sumiko Yoshida Corporation
164
|
Posted - 2014.01.29 22:45:00 -
[619] - Quote
Mike Voidstar wrote:I am asking you for an example of a direct, single, viable alternative not currently available other than preemtive attack. You claim there are many. I have checked and rechecked the thread and see only that one.
So, if I give you a single example of a direct viable alternative not currently available other than preempitive attack by the missioner, you will accept that the suggestion does in fact open up many possibilities that do not currently exist?
Is this what you are saying? The ability for everyone and their allies to legally counter-gank mission invaders... yes please. Add a Suspect Flag for Mission Invasion
Click "like" in the original post to support it. |
Dun'Gal
Myriad Contractors Inc.
62
|
Posted - 2014.01.29 23:25:00 -
[620] - Quote
Pretty sure he's saying that if you can provide an example other than preemptive strike, he may concede the fact that said example exists and you're not just blowing wind out your ass. |
|
Abdul 'aleem
Sumiko Yoshida Corporation
164
|
Posted - 2014.01.29 23:28:00 -
[621] - Quote
Abdul 'aleem wrote:Mike Voidstar wrote:I am asking you for an example of a direct, single, viable alternative not currently available other than preemtive attack. You claim there are many. I have checked and rechecked the thread and see only that one.
No one has given another alternative than preemtive attack. Please, educate me. You claim there are many so this should be simple.
Simply saying there are others without substanciating the claim offers nothing to discuss. I am willing to be convinced, if you can back up your claims in some way. So, if I give you a single example of a direct viable alternative not currently available other than preemptive attack by the missioner, you will accept that the suggestion does in fact open up many possibilities that do not currently exist? Is this what you are saying?
Dun'Gal wrote:Pretty sure he's saying that if you can provide an example other than preemptive strike, he may concede the fact that said example exists and you're not just blowing wind out your ass.
I just want him to confirm that I (am others) are understanding his statement so that there is no confusion.
Mike,
Are you saying that if I give you a single example of a direct viable alternative not currently available other than preemptive attack by the missioner, you will accept that the suggestion does in fact open up many possibilities that do not currently exist? The ability for everyone and their allies to legally counter-gank mission invaders... yes please. Add a Suspect Flag for Mission Invasion
Click "like" in the original post to support it. |
Dun'Gal
Myriad Contractors Inc.
62
|
Posted - 2014.01.29 23:29:00 -
[622] - Quote
Alright, tell you what, now I'm asking the same question. What options, other than preemptive strike, are made available to the mission runner as a result of what you are proposing? |
Abdul 'aleem
Sumiko Yoshida Corporation
164
|
Posted - 2014.01.29 23:35:00 -
[623] - Quote
Dun'Gal wrote:Alright, tell you what, now I'm asking the same question. What options, other than preemptive strike, are made available to the mission runner as a result of what you are proposing?
I think everyone is at that point right now, but, first things first.
I want to be certain that Mike is satisfied first.
Mike,
I ask again:
Abdul 'aleem wrote:Mike Voidstar wrote:I am asking you for an example of a direct, single, viable alternative not currently available other than preemtive attack. You claim there are many. I have checked and rechecked the thread and see only that one.
No one has given another alternative than preemtive attack. Please, educate me. You claim there are many so this should be simple.
Simply saying there are others without substanciating the claim offers nothing to discuss. I am willing to be convinced, if you can back up your claims in some way. So, if I give you a single example of a direct viable alternative not currently available other than preemptive attack by the missioner, you will accept that the suggestion does in fact open up many possibilities that do not currently exist? Is this what you are saying? The ability for everyone and their allies to legally counter-gank mission invaders... yes please. Add a Suspect Flag for Mission Invasion
Click "like" in the original post to support it. |
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
383
|
Posted - 2014.01.29 23:40:00 -
[624] - Quote
I am just trying to engage you in actual discussion of your idea. I still maintain it's a bad one for many reasons, and the fact that it does not do what it claims to do is just one.
You have made a simple claim: That It opens *many* new options for a missioner in dealing with "griefers". I disagree, and see only the singular new option of preemptive attack, which I do not see as a viable alternative as it is almost certain death to attack a PvP ready griefer in a missioning ship. Even if such an option was viable under ordinary circumstances, it's still only one option, and the claim is many.
Fire away. Let's hear about these new viable alternatives opened up by your idea. I understand that this is difficult, so take your time. Just repeating over and over again that they exist does not make it so... actually discuss your idea. You are big on word count, put some substance in it. |
Abdul 'aleem
Sumiko Yoshida Corporation
164
|
Posted - 2014.01.29 23:42:00 -
[625] - Quote
Mike Voidstar wrote:I am just trying to engage you in actual discussion of your idea. I still maintain it's a bad one for many reasons, and the fact that it does not do what it claims to do is just one.
You have made a simple claim: That It opens *many* new options for a missioner in dealing with "griefers". I disagree, and see only the singular new option of preemptive attack, which I do not see as a viable alternative as it is almost certain death to attack a PvP ready griefer in a missioning ship. Even if such an option was viable under ordinary circumstances, it's still only one option, and the claim is many.
Fire away. Let's hear about these new viable alternatives opened up by your idea. I understand that this is difficult, so take your time. Just repeating over and over again that they exist does not make it so... actually discuss your idea. You are big on word count, put some substance in it.
Mike, you're kind of looking a little dodgey.
If you are not just trolling please confirm this. A simple "yes" or "no" will be fine.
if I give you a single example of a direct viable alternative not currently available other than preemptive attack by the missioner, you will accept that the suggestion does in fact open up many possibilities that do not currently exist? The ability for everyone and their allies to legally counter-gank mission invaders... yes please. Add a Suspect Flag for Mission Invasion
Click "like" in the original post to support it. |
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
3478
|
Posted - 2014.01.29 23:54:00 -
[626] - Quote
Wow, you know how to keep a thread going!
As long as the safeties continue to work, I don't have a problem with your suggestion. The only way this would function, is if the "suspect flag" was granted the moment your ship attempted to warp into the mission. A green safety would simply prevent the warp. If the flag doesn't occur until you land, you could be kicked out of fleet prior to landing and then given a suspect flag in a manner the safety setting couldn't prevent, which would be very problematic.
Now, I want to address your bullshit intro paragraph:
Quote:It has been correctly identified that the theft of mission items in general and specifically Wei Todaki from the Lost Love mission can result in huge penalties to the missioner.
1.) In 99% of the missions undertaken in game, the penalties for having your mission item stolen are small to negligible, and certainly do NOT result in "huge penalties". What bullshit spin is this! You should work for Fox or CNN spewing crap like that!
2.) Scanning, camping, and the suspect flag for stealing loot are not minor activities that take no time. Your belittling of the dedication needed to ruin your day is just more bullshit spin.
3.) A person is currently allowed to enter a mission pocket, where they are allowed to salvage anything they want, and even kill NPC's that spawn. It is not your "space", and your request to shoot first is akin to letting me neuter you just because you looked at my wife with lustful eyes, regardless of whether you were going to violate her or not!
4.) You don't actually solve the problem of the "Wei Todaki" mission at ALL. Yes, you make it so the missioners can fight back, but the pragmatic nature of players means the organized and prepared pilots will obliterate the unprepared, especially when surprise is on their side. In other words, you don't solve the problem you claim to solve. If your true goal is to solve the "mission critical items get stolen and you have no recourse" dilemma, make it so missions always respawn at downtime, even if they are listed as completed. This allows industrious characters to run missions like Love Lost for several days, thereby collecting many Wei Todaki's, resulting in more affordable market pricing.
If you want any respect at all, you should restate your opening statement with less spin and more truth: 1.) There are few ways to prevent the theft of mission critical items like Wei Todaki. While most of the time the penalties for an incomplete mission are negligible, in the case of COSMOS missions the consequences are severe.
2.) You wish to add an addition method to defend mission critical items by making combat a legitimate recourse. Then propose making any non-fleet member that attempts to warp to your mission location a suspect. This way you can freely engage them when they land at the mission space.
3.) Acknowledge that while this won't prevent people from stealing your mission critical item, it will open up interesting avenues of game play to prevent them from the theft.
4.) Acknowledge that this implementation may have negative impacts on ninja salvagers, as they will become suspect immediately upon entering a mission site.
|
Dun'Gal
Myriad Contractors Inc.
62
|
Posted - 2014.01.29 23:59:00 -
[627] - Quote
So out of curiosity I decided to see how far back Mike has been trying to get you to give him a straight answer, and it seems about a page and a half now. In that page and a half you suggested that newcomers to this thread return to posts between 223 and 232 for the answer.
Thought I'd humor you and check for said answer and here are some things I've discovered.
A statement that there is multiple forms of counterplay with no examples
Abdul 'aleem wrote:The suggested suspect flag for trespassing will help to restore game balance and create counter-play options that do not currently exist.
A statement confirming the only option this opens up is preemptive strike
Abdul 'aleem wrote:This makes that invader open to attack from anyone and everyone immediately.
The mission owner then immediately has the options to attack the invader alone, get help from anyone in local or not attack at all.
That's all.
Another statement suggesting preemptive strike or possibly attack after which is not a change
Abdul 'aleem wrote:My suggestion offers everyone the right to shoot the invader, not just the missioner.
And a very flawed argument, see below for why this is flawed (and hilarious)
Abdul 'aleem wrote:If CCP intended for salvagers to have 0 risk in salvaging, they would be immune to attack in all areas while they salvaged. It's legal to salvage wrecks in WH, Low and Null space, but doing so carries a certain amount of risk due to the location choice. The fact that salvagers can be attacked while salvaging in these locations is proof that CCP does not have the intention of making the choice to salvage risk free.
By the logic of that last quote missioning in and of itself should flag the mission runner, let me use your own statement to argue this reasong:
If CCP intended for missioners to have 0 risk in missioning, they would be immune to attack in all areas while they missioned. It's legal to run missions in Low and Null space, but doing so carries a certain amount of risk due to the location choice. The fact that missioners can be attacked while missioning in these locations is proof that CCP does not have the intention of making the choice to mission risk free.
Would you care to comment on this? Also can you give me an example other than preemptive strike, that would be made available as a result of the change proposed in your OP? |
Abdul 'aleem
Sumiko Yoshida Corporation
164
|
Posted - 2014.01.30 00:03:00 -
[628] - Quote
Whoa... whoa... whoa....
Slow down fellas... slow down.
Let's take things one at a time.
While I still want to hear from Mike, I will agree that it is unfair to stall everything while he is forming his answer.
So, one concern at a time....
Fire away. The ability for everyone and their allies to legally counter-gank mission invaders... yes please. Add a Suspect Flag for Mission Invasion
Click "like" in the original post to support it. |
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
383
|
Posted - 2014.01.30 00:10:00 -
[629] - Quote
You have heard my question. Answer it if you can. You don't need any assurances from me to actually discuss your idea in a forthright, honest and productive manner. Stop crap posting and actually put up something of substance, if you are able. |
Abdul 'aleem
Sumiko Yoshida Corporation
164
|
Posted - 2014.01.30 00:12:00 -
[630] - Quote
Mike Voidstar wrote:You have heard my question. Answer it if you can. You don't need any assurances from me to actually discuss your idea in a forthright, honest and productive manner. Stop crap posting and actually put up something of substance, if you are able.
Sorry, Mike, I don't feed trolls.
If you can't even answer a simple question for the sake of clarity, you are trolling.
And, there are examples already posted by others. The ability for everyone and their allies to legally counter-gank mission invaders... yes please. Add a Suspect Flag for Mission Invasion
Click "like" in the original post to support it. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 .. 22 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |