|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Skex Relbore
   |
Posted - 2010.04.08 17:58:00 -
[1]
 Originally by: Tippia
Dammit. I hate arriving in a thread when all the good arguments have already been made.
Anyway: No. OP presents no useful reason why this needs to be changed.
I think that if you aren't in the gang with the person who has the mission then taking the completion item should set an agression flag so that the mission runner at least has the option of fighting for their property.
Not that I expect you to agree since you seem to object to any changes that allow the victims a chance to fight back.
|
Skex Relbore
|
Posted - 2010.04.08 18:31:00 -
[2]
Edited by: Skex Relbore on 08/04/2010 18:32:36
Originally by: Tippia
Originally by: Skex Relbore
I think that if you aren't in the gang with the person who has the mission then taking the completion item should set an agression flag so that the mission runner at least has the option of fighting for their property.
Not that I expect you to agree since you seem to object to any changes that allow the victims a chance to fight back.
If the thief could get the item, then so could the mission runner û if it was so important to him, then why didn't he go and get it already? In other words, no I don't object to giving them a chance to fight back û in fact, I think they already do, and have chosen not to.
Yes because it's such a fair race between a battleship and a frigate stealing your mission item.
The fact is that sometimes it is nessesary to travel to the mission completion item prior to picking it up. So no you do not believe in the right of the victim to fight back.
You're solutions are always carebear "just salvage faster" "just loot faster" Why can't it be blow them the F up.
Yeah they might come back for me in their PVP fit uber ship so effing what? at least I get to choose whether or not to take the chance rather than letting the theives hide behind Concords skirts.
Ransoming is an unlawful act taking a mission completion item is interfering with someone doing completing a contractual arangement.
When A corporation hires you in EVE to say "go rescue a damsel" or go retrieve our Quafe recipee from these criminals you are engaged in a legally sanctioned activity. The person who swoops in at the last minute and snatches the item/damsel is no different from the criminals you were contracted to retrieve the item from in the first place and as such should not be granted any more protection by the authorities (Concord) than were the original theives (rats).
Now I can see Concord saying "no we're not going to blow up the theif" that's not what they do but they shouldn't defend the theif just as they don't defend an ore theif or anyone else engaged in a criminal act.
To all the folks who say you should shoot them have fun when Concord blows your ship out from under you (and you still have to pay the ransom to get the item) and no you can't go in after downtime and do it again because the mission will be flagged complete and won't respawn. There is only one damsel while more pirates might be brought in tomorrow to defend their facilities if you fail to complete the mission objective once she's rescued that she doesn't majically respawn the next day.
As I said I support the ability and right of the missionrunner to defend their livelyhood and fight back against theives as they so choose. So putting the exact same damned flag on mission completion items/containers as every other effing loot canister in the mission space makes perfect effing sense.
If you complete the nesesary action to make the item available it should be flagged as your property and if someone comes along and picks it up they are a theif and can be dealt with in the same manner as somoene who comes and loots your wrecks.
|
Skex Relbore
|
Posted - 2010.04.08 18:58:00 -
[3]
Originally by: Tippia
Originally by: Skex Relbore
Yes because it's such a fair race between a battleship and a frigate stealing your mission item.
Pretty much, yes, seeing as how the battleship is in far better control over where and when the thing will appearà
àoh, and the fact that no-one is forcing you to use a battleship.
Quote:
You're solutions are always carebear "just salvage faster" "just loot faster" Why can't it be blow them the F up.
Because to maintain parity, you'd have to allow the thieves to blow the mission-runner up as well, and realistically, this is not something mission-runners want.
No you wouldn't. Because parity exists based on the fact that if the mission runner were to steel something from the mission invader then they'd be commiting a criminal act and would then surender their Concord protection.
There is parity because the rules are consistent for all parties. If you steal you are flagged as a criminal and the agreived party has been granted the right to take corrective action. If the agrieved party takes such action the theif is allowed their right to self defense and won't be concorded for retaliating.
The situation as it stands now completely favors the mission theif and leaves the mission runner no recourse other than to try to make sure that they are always with in loot range of the mission completion item when they complete said mission or to pay the ransom (which often is far in excess of the value of the mission to begin with).
|
Skex Relbore
|
Posted - 2010.04.08 20:11:00 -
[4]
Originally by: Tippia
Originally by: Skex Relbore
There is parity because the rules are consistent for all parties.
Exactly. So why do you want to add imparity? Why do you want to give mission runners an advantage they don't particularly need?
Quote:
The situation as it stands now completely favors the mission theif
How so?
It seems I failed to properly communicate.
If things were changed to make looting a mission objective a criminal act then there would be parity because the consequences are the same for commiting a criminal act.
As it stands now there is no parity because the theif in this case is being granted protection from the consequences of his actions.
What is silly is your demand that both criminals and legal actors should be treated identically. That's not the way things normally are done. The mission thief has invaded a mission with the sole purpose of interfering with the mission runners ability to complete his contract. They are the agressor in this sitaution they are the ones who are in violation of the law by engaging in a crimial act. Engaging in a criminal act has different consequences than acting to complete a legitimate contract.
Pirates and theives are by definition criminals and it is not at all unreasonable that they should be treated as such. Just because these are acceptable activities within the game mechanics does not mean that the choice to engage in criminal activities should be protected from consequence.
In too many cases in this game criminal activity is protected and that is simply unreasonable. People even 20,000 years from now would not accept such a situation. And it break immersion when such a silly situation exists.
We have a universe where crime is rampant and individual actors will launch suicide attacks against industrial and transport crafts yet in this hostile environment the manufacturers of these ships have taken no steps to beef these vessels up?
Allowing criminal behaviour as a valid playstyle is one thing, rigging the rules to favor that playstyle over all others is what is unreasonable.
In too many cases in this game those who behave like normal well adjusted human animals are put at a disadvantage to the sociopaths. This is just makes no sense. Societies take steps to protect themselves from such behaviors that's why we have prisons and assylums and police forces.
Flimsy industrial ships which enable near cost free suicide ganking. Concord providing protection for activities that any normal human being would consider crimial.
If this were a real universe the industrial ships would be armed and armored to the teeth. They'd have huge tanks and plenty of drones to defend themselves, They'd definitely be tough enough to hold together long enough for help to arive.
Hell you can't even escort these craft because they aren't beefy enough to live long eough for assistance to be granted.
High sec is supposed to be a safer place for those who are in compliance with the law it is perfectly reasonable that the mechanics in these systems should favor those who do not engage in criminal behavior.
Right now where is the parity of a consequence for the mission thief? As long as they do not loot anything other than the mission objective they recieve concord protection the person who is facing loss of standings and income unless they surender to the blackmail has no recourse if they attempt to destroy the theif they will loose their ship. if they refuse to pay the ransom they will loss faction standing with the agent they are working for which will reduce their potential income.
What negative consequences to the theif? None.
|
Skex Relbore
|
Posted - 2010.04.08 21:04:00 -
[5]
Edited by: Skex Relbore on 08/04/2010 21:05:43
Originally by: Syril Mert
I've never had this problem, but I don't do missions in systems with 400+ players either.
I've not had the problem either, Then again I've never been I've never had my house burgled either doesn't mean that should be legal.
And to Tippia's Cold harsh universe thing apparently you think it should only be a cold dark place for mission runners, miners and frieght haulers while Mission item theives and ninja salvagers get to hide behind Concords skirts and Suicide gankers should get insurance payments to subsidize their griefing.
Once again only a cold harsh universe for your victims while nothing but warmth and light and fluffy pillows for the griefers.
What are you afraid of? That if the "carebears" were given tools to fight back that you'd suddenly be facing carebears with fangs?
Once again here you are opposing an idea that would actually result in more combat (just like your opposition to making ninja salvaging flag for theft) while claiming to be some sort of hardcore PVPer.
Tell me who's really the carebear here?
|
|
|
| |
|