Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
Abdul 'aleem
Sumiko Yoshida Corporation
7
|
Posted - 2014.01.22 15:09:00 -
[61] - Quote
Mallak Azaria wrote:Abdul 'aleem wrote:Yes, I want to make "just looking" a criminal act. In real life your "just looking" is called "prowling" and is criminal. Hah, no it isn't. Unless you live in a really really backward country.
http://definitions.uslegal.com/p/prowling/
In my backward country of the United States, people Google before they post so as to not look the fool. |
Mallak Azaria
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
4411
|
Posted - 2014.01.22 15:21:00 -
[62] - Quote
Abdul 'aleem wrote:Mallak Azaria wrote:Abdul 'aleem wrote:Yes, I want to make "just looking" a criminal act. In real life your "just looking" is called "prowling" and is criminal. Hah, no it isn't. Unless you live in a really really backward country. http://definitions.uslegal.com/p/prowling/In my backward country of the United States, people Google before they post so as to not look the fool.
I was going to suggest that said backward country was the US, but I didn't want to assume. Thanks for proving my point though. This user won the forums on 18/09/2013, then lost on 18/12/2013. |
Abdul 'aleem
Sumiko Yoshida Corporation
7
|
Posted - 2014.01.22 15:22:00 -
[63] - Quote
Mallak Azaria wrote:Abdul 'aleem wrote:Mallak Azaria wrote:Abdul 'aleem wrote:Yes, I want to make "just looking" a criminal act. In real life your "just looking" is called "prowling" and is criminal. Hah, no it isn't. Unless you live in a really really backward country. http://definitions.uslegal.com/p/prowling/In my backward country of the United States, people Google before they post so as to not look the fool. I was going to suggest that said backward country was the US, but I didn't want to assume. Thanks for proving my point though.
Nice back peddling sir. gg wp. |
Mallak Azaria
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
4411
|
Posted - 2014.01.22 15:25:00 -
[64] - Quote
Abdul 'aleem wrote:Mallak Azaria wrote:Abdul 'aleem wrote:Mallak Azaria wrote:Abdul 'aleem wrote:Yes, I want to make "just looking" a criminal act. In real life your "just looking" is called "prowling" and is criminal. Hah, no it isn't. Unless you live in a really really backward country. http://definitions.uslegal.com/p/prowling/In my backward country of the United States, people Google before they post so as to not look the fool. I was going to suggest that said backward country was the US, but I didn't want to assume. Thanks for proving my point though. Nice back peddling sir. gg wp.
There is no back-peddling there. You live in a backward country with backward laws. This user won the forums on 18/09/2013, then lost on 18/12/2013. |
Estella Osoka
Deep Void Merc Syndicate Sicarius Draconis
279
|
Posted - 2014.01.22 15:43:00 -
[65] - Quote
This whole problem would have been solved if you had been smart enough to have not popped the mission loot rat until you were within distance to scoop loot just as you finish him off.
Stop whining because you don't know how to EVE. |
Abdul 'aleem
Sumiko Yoshida Corporation
7
|
Posted - 2014.01.22 16:06:00 -
[66] - Quote
Estella Osoka wrote:This whole problem would have been solved if you had been smart enough to have not popped the mission loot rat until you were within distance to scoop loot just as you finish him off.
Stop whining because you don't know how to EVE.
Ahh, thanks for sharing your keen insight and vast EVE knowledge.
Wow. I am totally relieved to know that my proximity to the drop can will prevent anyone else from taking the mission item.
Here I was all "not knowing how to EVE" and all, totally not knowing that if I was just close enough to loot the can it would prevent someone else from looting it....
But, we all know that that's not the way it works, right? When has proximity ever stopped someone else from looting a can?
It's a game balance issue.
The risk/reward equation for criminal acts, especially mission item theft/griefing, is way off. |
Abdul 'aleem
Sumiko Yoshida Corporation
7
|
Posted - 2014.01.22 16:44:00 -
[67] - Quote
thowlimer wrote:The only thing that you would really need to change is to make the drop chance of the mission item 100% that way you could kill the ninjha looter without having to shoot a 50% craps game
This is definitely a solution to part of the problem.
But, if the griefer/thief decides to loot and run, the missioner is left without options.
The only way to even out the equation is to raise the risk to the griefer/thief or reduce it for the missioner.
I am in favor of just raising the risk to the criminal.
Think of how much more clever and superior all these criminals can feel if they have to actually assume a level of risk that is proportionate to the potential reward of the criminal action....
It is really depriving criminals of the whole EVE gaming experience to allow them to PLEX several accounts with relatively little to no risk/effort/time.
ISK faucets are bad, right? Maybe it's time to start turning off the criminal ISK faucets? |
Mallak Azaria
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
4411
|
Posted - 2014.01.22 17:21:00 -
[68] - Quote
Abdul 'aleem wrote:ISK faucets are bad, right? Maybe it's time to start turning off the criminal ISK faucets?
Criminal actions aren't an isk faucet, so there's nothing to turn off. This user won the forums on 18/09/2013, then lost on 18/12/2013. |
Abdul 'aleem
Sumiko Yoshida Corporation
7
|
Posted - 2014.01.22 17:53:00 -
[69] - Quote
Mallak Azaria wrote:Abdul 'aleem wrote:ISK faucets are bad, right? Maybe it's time to start turning off the criminal ISK faucets? Criminal actions aren't an isk faucet, so there's nothing to turn off.
I believe they are, sir... I believe they are.
All that CCP needs to do is look at a few wallets to verify this. And I really hope that they do.
I believe that it all comes down to the old ISK/hour equation.
In the case of the OP, the mission thief gets 700 mil per successful theft. They can do it with a low SP alt with little to no effort or game interaction. That is an ISK faucet, as much as AFK missioning was or more so.
CCP rightfully adjusted game mechanics to require more interaction from missioners.
I suspect that people like this Princess Achaja are making a whole lot more ISK for a whole lot less effort than any AFK missioner ever did.
I wonder how much time an AFK missioner would have to put in to make 700 mil...
And here we have people doing it multiple times with less effort/time spent....
Little to no SP required... cheap ship... little to no effort/time/skill required... big payoff....
Yeah, it's an ISK faucet. And every ganker and mission thief knows it.
Name one other way in EVE that you can PLEX an account with as little investment in training, equipment and time spent as this particular mission theft scenario. |
Mallak Azaria
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
4411
|
Posted - 2014.01.22 17:57:00 -
[70] - Quote
Abdul 'aleem wrote:Mallak Azaria wrote:Abdul 'aleem wrote:ISK faucets are bad, right? Maybe it's time to start turning off the criminal ISK faucets? Criminal actions aren't an isk faucet, so there's nothing to turn off. I believe they are, sir... I believe they are. All that CCP needs to do is look at a few wallets to verify this. And I really hope that they do. I believe that it all comes down to the old ISK/hour equation. In the case of the OP, the mission thief gets 700 mil per successful theft. They can do it with a low SP alt with little to no effort or game interaction. That is an ISK faucet, as much as AFK missioning was or more so. CCP rightfully adjusted game mechanics to require more interaction from missioners. I suspect that people like this Princess Achaja are making a whole lot more ISK for a whole lot less effort than any AFK missioner ever did. I wonder how much time an AFK missioner would have to put in to make 700 mil... And here we have people doing it multiple times with less effort/time spent.... Little to no SP required... cheap ship... little to no effort/time/skill required... big payoff.... Yeah, it's an ISK faucet. And every ganker and mission thief knows it. Name one other way in EVE that you can PLEX an account with as little investment in training, equipment and time spent as this particular mission theft scenario.
If you really believe that this is an isk faucet, then you don't know what a isk faucet is. Tell me, how often does a criminal action inject isk in to the game that did not exist before?
As for naming another way, scamming comes to mind, but that isn't a faucet either. This user won the forums on 18/09/2013, then lost on 18/12/2013. |
|
Qalix
Long Jump.
41
|
Posted - 2014.01.22 17:58:00 -
[71] - Quote
Abdul 'aleem wrote:You are still being an alarmist here.
- PvP baiting: yeah it's going to happen, as it happens already. Non-issue. Getting flagged at warp-in or after the theft only changes the timeline. If they are going to bait you, they just come back after the theft anyway. But, I would personally take the opportunity to counter prior to the theft over being forced to wait until it is actually completed. As it is now, if they choose to steal and run, there are no options for the missioner to counter.
- WTs are already exempt from actions against other WTs
- Pop-up warning before criminal actions already exist = if you start a warp to a non-valid target (non-WT in your case) unintentionally, you get a warning before the action is completed.
As to your suggestion to post the idea in Features & Ideas, 100% solid and on point. Some more things:
Your first comment is pretty good evidence that you haven't thought this through. Let's examine the OP's situation using your mechanics.
He's bopping along in the Cosmos site, kicking NPC butt. Oh no! Mission Invaders! They're flashing yellow! Now what? First, he hasn't finished the mission or killed the ship that drops the item. Second, they are now killing ships and are about to kill the ship that drops the item. If he fires on them, they turn on him (though one guy will probably still go after the mission item). Lock, point, webs, painted. Ewar engaged. Then they start neuting your typical active PvE tank. Once the hardeners and reps go off, you're done. You've lost your ship. You may or may not also lose your pod and all of those pretty, pretty implants. As you warp away, you see your mission item get scooped. The likely cost of paying ransom for the item is half the total reward of the mission chain. Your ship and fittings likely cost more than the total rewards anyway. In other words, you lose.
So. What did the flag get you? Killed. In fact, unless you're baiting mission invaders in a properly fit ship, this will be the inevitable result of any and all attempts to engage PvP ships in a PvE ship. And if you're baiting them, you can do it just as well when they flag themselves, and they're definitely going to flag themselves.
If what you want is to prevent people from stealing Wei Todaki or some similar mission item, the solution is infinitely simpler. Just update missions so that the cans they're in are locked. You get the key with the mission acceptance. No need for contorted, convoluted, half-baked, poorly conceived total changes to game mechanics and philosophy.
|
Qalix
Long Jump.
41
|
Posted - 2014.01.22 18:01:00 -
[72] - Quote
The definition of "ISK faucet" is that it is ISK that doesn't exist in the game before it winds up in your wallet. For example, npc bounties and mission rewards. Anything a criminal does involves taking ISK from someone else. If criminals kill mission runners before they finish the mission, they're actually countering the ISK faucet. |
Batelle
Komm susser Tod
1352
|
Posted - 2014.01.22 18:13:00 -
[73] - Quote
Abdul 'aleem wrote: Yes, I want to make "just looking" a criminal act. In real life your "just looking" is called "prowling" and is criminal. And, yeah, it is really ok.
Hisec is equal access public space. If you don't like it, then go somewhere where you're allowed to shoot people that enter.
Quote:Yes, pop-ups are enough to keep those who truly have no criminal intent safe. No, they're not. If you can't see why this is terrible game design then you have no business making suggestions. "CCP is changing policy, and has asked that we discontinue the bonus credit program after November 7th. So until then, enjoy a super-bonus of 1B Blink Credit for each 60-day GTC you buy!"
Never forget. |
Abdul 'aleem
Sumiko Yoshida Corporation
7
|
Posted - 2014.01.22 18:43:00 -
[74] - Quote
Qalix wrote:
Some more things:
Your first comment is pretty good evidence that you haven't thought this through. Let's examine the OP's situation using your mechanics.
He's bopping along in the Cosmos site, kicking NPC butt. Oh no! Mission Invaders! They're flashing yellow! Now what? First, he hasn't finished the mission or killed the ship that drops the item. Second, they are now killing ships and are about to kill the ship that drops the item. If he fires on them, they turn on him (though one guy will probably still go after the mission item). Lock, point, webs, painted. Ewar engaged. Then they start neuting your typical active PvE tank. Once the hardeners and reps go off, you're done. You've lost your ship. You may or may not also lose your pod and all of those pretty, pretty implants. As you warp away, you see your mission item get scooped. The likely cost of paying ransom for the item is half the total reward of the mission chain. Your ship and fittings likely cost more than the total rewards anyway. In other words, you lose.
So. What did the flag get you? Killed. In fact, unless you're baiting mission invaders in a properly fit ship, this will be the inevitable result of any and all attempts to engage PvP ships in a PvE ship. And if you're baiting them, you can do it just as well when they flag themselves, and they're definitely going to flag themselves.
If what you want is to prevent people from stealing Wei Todaki or some similar mission item, the solution is infinitely simpler. Just update missions so that the cans they're in are locked. You get the key with the mission acceptance. No need for contorted, convoluted, half-baked, poorly conceived total changes to game mechanics and philosophy.
For all of your time spent writing that, you are totally overlooking two things:
1) the flag makes the criminal a valid target to everyone, not just the missioner
2) it does it immediately not after the theft is completed
The largest part of the problem is that there is no way to counter the theft , especially in the OP's case. If the mission cannot be reset after DT, the missioner must complete before then.
Right now, the only semi-legitimate "defense" is to warp out every time scanner probes come up on d-scan. But, the missioner cannot do this indefinitely, because of the time constraint.
The risk/reward needs to be balanced out. As it is now, the missioner has considerably more risk for the same reward, as has been stated earlier in this thread (the reward in this case being the mission item).
The problem isn't solely the risk of theft; it is more that the missioner has no ability to counter until after the item is stolen and even then only if the thief chooses to PvP.
Again, if it is ok that the missioner assume a level of risk because of the potential reward, then it is also ok to have the mission/thief griefer also assume a proportionate level of risk. |
Abdul 'aleem
Sumiko Yoshida Corporation
7
|
Posted - 2014.01.22 18:57:00 -
[75] - Quote
Mallak Azaria wrote:
If you really believe that this is an isk faucet, then you don't know what a isk faucet is. Tell me, how often does a criminal action inject isk in to the game that did not exist before?
As for naming another way, scamming comes to mind, but that isn't a faucet either.
Ahh, ok, yes... maybe I should have said.... "ISK fountain?"
And I am 100% happy that you equated this to scamming. That is really a pretty accurate assessment.
Edit: Except for the fact that the missioner has time constraints, no realistic way to prevent/avoid the theft and gets locked out of content upon failure*** |
Mallak Azaria
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
4411
|
Posted - 2014.01.22 20:06:00 -
[76] - Quote
Abdul 'aleem wrote:Mallak Azaria wrote:
If you really believe that this is an isk faucet, then you don't know what a isk faucet is. Tell me, how often does a criminal action inject isk in to the game that did not exist before?
As for naming another way, scamming comes to mind, but that isn't a faucet either.
Ahh, ok, yes... maybe I should have said.... "ISK fountain?" And I am 100% happy that you equated this to scamming. That is really a pretty accurate assessment. Edit: Except for the fact that the missioner has time constraints, no realistic way to prevent/avoid/counter the theft and gets locked out of content upon failure***
How much isk the fountain spews out is directly related to how stupid &/or lazy the potential victim is. This user won the forums on 18/09/2013, then lost on 18/12/2013. |
Abdul 'aleem
Sumiko Yoshida Corporation
7
|
Posted - 2014.01.22 20:19:00 -
[77] - Quote
Mallak Azaria wrote:Abdul 'aleem wrote:Mallak Azaria wrote:
If you really believe that this is an isk faucet, then you don't know what a isk faucet is. Tell me, how often does a criminal action inject isk in to the game that did not exist before?
As for naming another way, scamming comes to mind, but that isn't a faucet either.
Ahh, ok, yes... maybe I should have said.... "ISK fountain?" And I am 100% happy that you equated this to scamming. That is really a pretty accurate assessment. Edit: Except for the fact that the missioner has time constraints, no realistic way to prevent/avoid/counter the theft and gets locked out of content upon failure*** How much isk the fountain spews out is directly related to how stupid &/or lazy the potential victim is.
Wow. I think I have heard the same reasoning to defend exploits as well. "I was smart enough to figure out the exploit, so I should be allowed to do it."
Mission theft, especially in this specific mission, is about as close to using an exploit as you can get without it being called such.
In fact the only thing maybe that prevents this from being classified as exploit is the fact that CCP hasn't said that it was unintended. But, I would say that CCP obviously knows there is a problem with it which is why they do reset missions.
However, even if it is "working as intended," it is still off balance. The risk/reward equation needs to be adjusted.
Raise the risk to the criminal or lower the risk to the missioner.
Either is fine.
And neither will be game breaking. |
Qalix
Long Jump.
46
|
Posted - 2014.01.22 23:17:00 -
[78] - Quote
Abdul 'aleem wrote:For all of your time spent writing that, you are totally overlooking two things:
1) the flag makes the criminal a valid target to everyone, not just the missioner
2) it does it immediately not after the theft is completed
The largest part of the problem is that there is no way to counter the theft , especially in the OP's case. If the mission cannot be reset after DT, the missioner must complete before then.
Right now, the only semi-legitimate "defense" is to warp out every time scanner probes come up on d-scan. But, the missioner cannot do this indefinitely, because of the time constraint.
The risk/reward needs to be balanced out. As it is now, the missioner has considerably more risk for the same reward, as has been stated earlier in this thread (the reward in this case being the mission item).
The problem isn't solely the risk of theft; it is more that the missioner has no ability to counter until after the item is stolen and even then only if the thief chooses to PvP.
Again, if it is ok that the missioner assume a level of risk because of the potential reward, then it is also ok to have the mission thief/griefer also assume a proportionate level of risk.
At the very least, flagging them before the actual item is stolen raises the risk of the action and gives the missioner more options. The flag would make them vulnerable to everyone, but since the thief is in YOUR mission, then (using your new mechanics) no one else can come to help you. It would be good only after the fact, and that is already what occurs.
I like how you totally ignored the suggestion to just lock the can with the item, which would completely solve the problem by removing all incentive for thieves. Mission invaders who want to PvP won't be stopped or inconvienced by your suggested mechanics (in fact it helps them) and the locked item isn't part of their calculations. They want you to shoot them and unless you're bait or have real backup, shooting them is just about the dumbest thing you could do.
I get that you don't like mission invaders. I'm not a fan either. But this game is based on the concept of conflict drivers. Hisec doesn't get a free pass from core design elements. Risk/reward isn't even part of this discussion, if for no other reason than stealing your mission item is of no value to them if you don't pay them. If the GMs are resetting those missions because the item is being stolen, then CCP has effectively obliterated the ISK incentive for engaging in the stealing mission items. What you ought to be doing is educating mission runners on what CCP is doing and help to destroy the theives' business model. THAT would be in the PvP spirit of EVE. |
DeMichael Crimson
Republic University Minmatar Republic
20049
|
Posted - 2014.01.22 23:21:00 -
[79] - Quote
OK, gonna jump into this crapola again.
I pretty much agree with Abdul 'aleem.
Especially when it pertains to Cosmos Mission items. These missions are not like regular missions that keep getting offered over and over again. The player character only get's one chance to complete the Cosmos Mission, that's it.
Cosmos Missions are usually done solo primarily for the standing gain with the rewards being secondary. The standings and the rewards can not be shared with fleet.
I don't care what anyone says, changing the game mechanics pertaining to Cosmos Agents and Missions is way overdue, not to mention it isn't that hard for CCP to do.
I like the idea of someone warping into your Cosmos Deadspace site getting a suspect flag. Of course fleet members would be exempt. Naturally since the static Cosmos Complexes are public those sites would also be exempt. The only reason why somebody else besides a fleet member would warp into the Cosmos Deadspace site is to steal or gank, sometimes with intention of doing both.
That definitely would create more PvP action. Would also give the mission runner a chance to stop the invaders from getting the mission item.
Now let's get real about the whole mission situation. My mission area is my private Deadspace spot offered to me personally by my Agent. It's not a public static Complex nor does it have a beacon showing in the overview for other players to warp towards. As such, the game mechanics should allow me and anyone in my fleet to open fire on them just for trespassing. As I said earlier, the only reason they're in my mission area is to steal or gank, maybe with the intention of doing both.
By the way, I really hate seeing sarcastic, demeaning, troll remarks being posted, especially when it's directed to my country - USA. In fact, doesn't matter what country it is, I'm gonna report it next time.
DMC |
Kirkwood Ross
Golden Profession
127
|
Posted - 2014.01.23 03:11:00 -
[80] - Quote
A long time ago there was a mechanic in place that made it impossible to probe down ships in sites. They removed this mechanic but perhaps you should post they re-introduce it in private Story-Line, Epic-Arc, and Cosmos missions to avoid this situation. |
|
Abdul 'aleem
Sumiko Yoshida Corporation
21
|
Posted - 2014.01.23 04:07:00 -
[81] - Quote
Kirkwood Ross wrote:A long time ago there was a mechanic in place that made it impossible to probe down ships in sites. They removed this mechanic but perhaps you should post they re-introduce it in private Story-Line, Epic-Arc, and Cosmos missions to avoid this situation.
This is definitely one potential solution.
As mentioned earlier though, I am personally in favor of allowing the potential for the criminal act, just adjusting the risk/reward balance and adding the potential for counter-play which is at best extremely low (meaning only an option if the thief chooses to PvP bait and only after the item has already been stolen). |
Abdul 'aleem
Sumiko Yoshida Corporation
21
|
Posted - 2014.01.23 05:57:00 -
[82] - Quote
Thank you Qalix for the suggestion to post in Features & Ideas.
I have tried to consolidate everyone's input from this thread there in the initial post.
Please feel free to double check it for accuracy and/or to carry on this discussion there.
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=4143166#post4143166
|
Loraine Gess
Confedeferate Union of Tax Legalists
59
|
Posted - 2014.01.24 14:12:00 -
[83] - Quote
Abdul 'aleem wrote:
You're funny man.
You kind of ignore the whole mechanic currently in place that creates a pop-up before a criminal act is committed asking if you really want to do it.
So, yeah, BE SCARED! Someone is going to make you warp to a mission site and kill you if this change is made!
lol.
And, as to your equally foolish comment about "defending" a mission site, what exactly is it that you think can be done to a person inside your pocket right now, unless they are a WT or you have pre-existing Kill rights on them?
They are not a valid target 99.99999% of the time until AFTER they steal from your site, you know this right?
Yeah, stupidity or troll....
3/10 because I actually responded.
You think the concord warning stops fools from blowing themselves up? Nope.
You think crimewatch stops my associates from awoxing people? Nope.
You think the big old wormhole "WARNING THIS **** IS DANGEROUS" warning stops our reverse safaris into WH space? Noooope.
Fit unprobable, fight them, or admit your resources are lost. If you can't defend them you don't deserve them. If you can't figure out how to stop someone from stealing your mission loot when you have a time advantage, can pick and choose the time of engagement as well as the circumstances that it will play out under, you're a complete idiot. I would offer to demonstrate the vulnerability of ships before they enter warp, but unlike you mission runners, I actually value my time. |
Loraine Gess
Confedeferate Union of Tax Legalists
59
|
Posted - 2014.01.24 14:14:00 -
[84] - Quote
Abdul 'aleem wrote:
Mission theft/griefing is 100% a game balance issue.
If it is ok that the missioner assume risks because the "reward is so high", then it is equally ok that the griefer/thief be made to have a measure of risk proportionate to their potential "reward" in stealing the item.
If griefers, "pirates" and thieves actually had to assume a balanced amount of risk for their actions... how tragic. They may have to farm their own tears there.
Measure of risk ----> Opportunity cost and suspect flags. They steal from you because it's easy. Michi's has a huge reward for the time spent, and you're no risk because you're incompetent. It's a very simple equation. Stop holding your money out in front of you on a busy street and people are less likely to take it. |
Loraine Gess
Confedeferate Union of Tax Legalists
59
|
Posted - 2014.01.24 14:16:00 -
[85] - Quote
Qual wrote:The only thing CCP need to fix is the completion trigger. If you can pick up the item and have the mission NOT be finished then everything would be good. If you dont get it it today, try again tomorrow.
I hear you say: " But then the completion item would be farmable!" To that I say: "Yes! But at least the farmers would have to put in real work to get it, and CCP customer service would have one less worry."
Then the bottom falls out of the market as every person and their FW alt can dump a 1b implant on the market. Within 24 hours, they won't be worth 1b. And then you won't want to do this COSMOS mission. And then you'll ***** because CCP devalued your precious rewards with something you asked for. |
Abdul 'aleem
Sumiko Yoshida Corporation
45
|
Posted - 2014.01.24 15:45:00 -
[86] - Quote
Loraine Gess wrote:Abdul 'aleem wrote:
Mission theft/griefing is 100% a game balance issue.
If it is ok that the missioner assume risks because the "reward is so high", then it is equally ok that the griefer/thief be made to have a measure of risk proportionate to their potential "reward" in stealing the item.
If griefers, "pirates" and thieves actually had to assume a balanced amount of risk for their actions... how tragic. They may have to farm their own tears there.
Measure of risk ----> Opportunity cost and suspect flags. They steal from you because it's easy. Michi's has a huge reward for the time spent, and you're no risk because you're incompetent. It's a very simple equation. Stop holding your money out in front of you on a busy street and people are less likely to take it.
Yes, thanks for supporting my suggestion that mission invaders be suspect flagged at warp in to raise their risk compared to the reward for stealing the item.
It's funny how many of these tough "pirates" want to keep Concord protection while they trespass in the missioner's mission site waiting to steal the item.
You are totally right that the lack of any suspect flag while they are in the missioner's pocket means there is little to no risk at all to the mission item thief. |
Princess Achaja
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2014.01.24 15:52:00 -
[87] - Quote
Loraine Gess wrote:Qual wrote:The only thing CCP need to fix is the completion trigger. If you can pick up the item and have the mission NOT be finished then everything would be good. If you dont get it it today, try again tomorrow.
I hear you say: " But then the completion item would be farmable!" To that I say: "Yes! But at least the farmers would have to put in real work to get it, and CCP customer service would have one less worry." Then the bottom falls out of the market as every person and their FW alt can dump a 1b implant on the market. Within 24 hours, they won't be worth 1b. And then you won't want to do this COSMOS mission. And then you'll ***** because CCP devalued your precious rewards with something you asked for.
|
|
ISD LackOfFaith
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
1078
|
Posted - 2014.01.24 15:58:00 -
[88] - Quote
Thread locked for cleanup. ISD LackOfFaith Lieutenant Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs) Interstellar Services Department @ISD_LackOfFaith on Twitter |
|
Abdul 'aleem
Sumiko Yoshida Corporation
46
|
Posted - 2014.01.24 18:58:00 -
[89] - Quote
Loraine Gess wrote:
Then the bottom falls out of the market as every person and their FW alt can dump a 1b implant on the market. Within 24 hours, they won't be worth 1b. And then you won't want to do this COSMOS mission. And then you'll ***** because CCP devalued your precious rewards with something you asked for.
The faction standing and content is the main reward for running these missions.
And, the missioner loses both of those upon failure.
The market value of the item mainly effects the risk/reward to the thief not the missioner.
If the implant price falls, the reward for stealing the mission item also drops because the thief cannot extort as much ISK.
This results in more risk/reward balance to the thief.
The inflated value of the implant is definitely a factor in the current imbalance and causing a problem.
Thanks for pointing this out, Loraine Gess.
|
Estella Osoka
Deep Void Merc Syndicate Sicarius Draconis
283
|
Posted - 2014.01.25 16:39:00 -
[90] - Quote
Even if they did go suspect when they warped into your mission site, missioners still would not shoot the pirate. The pirates would just sit in your mission site all blinky (waiting for you to shoot), then you would pop the rat that drops the loot and they would scoop it and warp out.
And why would you not shoot them? Because for the simple fact the missioner would be in a mission ship and the pirate is in a PVP ship; and you know if you engage, you will die.
If you think the simple fact that them going suspect will make them think twice about going into your mission, you are dead wrong. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |