| 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) |
Abdul 'aleem
Sumiko Yoshida Corporation
21
   |
Posted - 2014.01.23 03:55:00 -
[1] - Quote
This is a post resulting from a suggestion from Qalix in a Mission & Complexes thread regarding COSMOS mission item theft, specifically the targeted theft of Wei Todaki from the Lost Love mission.
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.
Some of the main penalties/risks of failure to the missioner were identified as (not necessarily in order of severity):
1) the inability to complete the mission
2) getting locked out of all subsequent missions in the chain permanently
3) huge standing loss for mission failure
4) loss of all potential standing gains from subsequent missions
5) loss of mission rewards from this mission and subsequent missions
6) loss of accumulated time spent in preparing for and running the missions (time spent grinding standing to qualify, training time for level 4+ mission ship/fit, actual time invested in running the missions up to the point of the theft, etc)
It was also identified that the main risks to the mission thief/griefer are:
1) loss of time spent training (basic scanning skills, frigate fit with probe launcher)
2) loss of time spent camping, scanning the pocket and waiting for the item drop
3) possible loss of ship in the event that the thief/griefer fails the align-loot-warp timing
It was proposed that, in addition to the disproportionate risk and cost of failure to the missioner, the most significant problem was the lack of potential counters to the mission item theft due to the following limitations currently placed on the missioner:
1) The would be thief is not a valid target in almost all situations until after they have successfully looted the mission item
2) If the thief aligns, loots and warps, the missioner can be deprived of the possibility to engage
3) In the event that the missioner is somehow able to target and kill the thief after they have looted the mission item and earned criminal flag, there is a high probability that the mission item may be destroyed as well
4) the only realistic defense currently available to the missioner is to warp out of the mission pocket every time the would be thief/griefer starts to scan
5) the missioner has a finite amount of time to complete the mission and exceeding that time limit may result in failure (it was presented that if the mission is not completed before DT, it may not reset)
It has been correctly identified that in almost all cases, a player warping into another player's mission pocket is doing so with the intention to steal or gank or both (exceptions being fleet members, WTs, players with kill rights, and others classified as exempt from criminal acts against the owner).
I am suggesting that CCP treat the mission pocket space assigned and created for the missioner, especially COSMOS and other unique mission pockets, as belonging to the missioner.
I am asking that unauthorized or illegal trespassers trigger a criminal flag immediately upon making the decision to warp into another player's mission pocket without their permission.
As mentioned, all exemptions currently in play for fleet members, WTs and other legal trespassers would remain in play and override this criminal flag.
All warnings prior to criminal acts would also apply.
In the event that a person is attempting to scan down and warp to a valid target, initiating warp to mission pocket owned by an invalid target would generate such a warning. If a valid WT is present in a non-valid target's mission pocket, the flag would warrant an override.
The intention of this change is to:
1) allow the missioner options for counter-play and defense of assets that currently do not exist, making it possible to prevent the crime as opposed to only being able to act after the item has been stolen (which is often too late or results in an excessive risk of the item being destroyed)
2) balance the risk/reward equation for both the criminal and the missioner (raising the exposure time as a valid target and allowing the missioner to act prior to the item being stolen)
I submit this idea to the forums. It is not intended as a complete or perfect remedy to the problem of unique mission item theft, only as a way of regaining some risk/reward balance for both the missioner and the thief/griefer.
As it is now, there is a disproportionate amount of cost/risk to the missioner for failure, compared to that of the thief/griefer, and little to no opportunity to counter. |
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
958
|
Posted - 2014.01.23 04:09:00 -
[2] - Quote
While I get what you are trying to do, you are starting at the wrong point.
The issue actually comes from the COSMOS missions themselves, their crazy rewards, and their single time only static nature which is an artefact from right back at the start of EVE.
If the missions were repeatable or reset, then this would not be an issue.
Or even better, if they were randomly generated and not always in a single static location and not always the same objective. |
Abdul 'aleem
Sumiko Yoshida Corporation
21
|
Posted - 2014.01.23 04:15:00 -
[3] - Quote
Nevyn Auscent wrote:While I get what you are trying to do, you are starting at the wrong point.
The issue actually comes from the COSMOS missions themselves, their crazy rewards, and their single time only static nature which is an artefact from right back at the start of EVE.
If the missions were repeatable or reset, then this would not be an issue.
Or even better, if they were randomly generated and not always in a single static location and not always the same objective.
Yes, I agree. I am only trying to propose a solution that modifies the existing situation and doesn't require a total over haul.
I think that the root problem is the inability to counter on the part of the missioner until it is too late, if at all.
As long as there is the potential for counter-play from the missioner and the risk/reward equation is balanced for each side, the mission theft dynamic can provide for good game play on both sides. |
Zan Shiro
Alternative Enterprises
361
|
Posted - 2014.01.23 04:51:00 -
[4] - Quote
or jsut go buy the mission item from market/contracts? Don't like the standings drop its gets you the completion.
For some missions you will find you get more than enough items to stock up yourself as well for later use. For missions like these and if I am in full bore blitz mode its pop triggers asap, get the checkmark in the box for deadspace complete and turn in the extras at station already as my blitzes are no looting run and guns.
Think its the blood raider militants one, that got me armies of them. I used to take some of the extras and carry them in pvp ships. Figure whoever got the wreck might get a laugh out of picking up militants along with my real loot.
eve doesn't do instances. Closest you get is ship restrictions on gates or say skill restrictions for some 0.0 ca's (warp drive op 5 iirc for a few). No warp drive op 5, not getting in.
Also you could jsut pop the mission item carrying trigger after you close and kill them to snatch it before they do.
This can be fun in say damsel. I know from drunken dual boxing frigates like bombers go boom with the pleasure gardens aoe. I used to run a bomber dual boxed with say a rattler meat shield for aggro beatings, drunk flew it too close to the garden, popped it and -1 bomber, doh.
|
Riot Girl
You'll Cowards Don't Even Smoke Crack
2445
|
Posted - 2014.01.23 05:08:00 -
[5] - Quote
It doesn't need to be rebalanced. You already know thieves are a risk in this mission, so make preparations for that. Now it is balanced.
Oh god. |
Riot Girl
You'll Cowards Don't Even Smoke Crack
2445
|
Posted - 2014.01.23 05:10:00 -
[6] - Quote
Abdul 'aleem wrote:4) the only realistic defense currently available to the missioner is to warp out of the mission pocket every time the would be thief/griefer starts to scan
What is suicide ganking?
Abdul 'aleem wrote:I am asking that unauthorized or illegal trespassers trigger a criminal flag immediately upon making the decision to warp into another player's mission pocket without their permission.
What is that going to do?
Oh god. |
Abdul 'aleem
Sumiko Yoshida Corporation
21
|
Posted - 2014.01.23 05:16:00 -
[7] - Quote
Zan Shiro wrote:or jsut go buy the mission item from market/contracts? Don't like the standings drop its gets you the completion.
For some missions you will find you get more than enough items to stock up yourself as well for later use. For missions like these and if I am in full bore blitz mode its pop triggers asap, get the checkmark in the box for deadspace complete and turn in the extras at station already as my blitzes are no looting run and guns.
Think its the blood raider militants one, that got me armies of them. I used to take some of the extras and carry them in pvp ships. Figure whoever got the wreck might get a laugh out of picking up militants along with my real loot.
eve doesn't do instances. Closest you get is ship restrictions on gates or say skill restrictions for some 0.0 ca's (warp drive op 5 iirc for a few). No warp drive op 5, not getting in.
Also you could jsut pop the mission item carrying trigger after you close and kill them to snatch it before they do.
This can be fun in say damsel. I know from drunken dual boxing frigates like bombers go boom with the pleasure gardens aoe. I used to run a bomber dual boxed with say a rattler meat shield for aggro beatings, drunk flew it too close to the garden, popped it and -1 bomber, doh.
edit: granted cosmos be a bit difficult but this half instancing would apply to normal missions as well, which be a problem. tbh shocked people run cosmos still. has payout gotten better than the mod bp's no one really uses the items for?
The possibility for theft is not the problem, nor is this a suggestion to "instance" mission pockets.
It is that the missioner has few if any real options available to them and the risk of failure is disproportionate to that of the invader.
The main thing that a criminal flag on warp in changes is the timeline in which the criminal is flagged and vulnerable to counter attack, not just from the missioner, but also to anyone invited to assist.
Access to the mission pocket is never restricted to anyone in this suggestion. It only makes the initiation of the theft a criminal act, and that starts with intent at the time of the warp in.
Proximity to the loot drop has been discussed in the Missions & Complexes thread, and it has been rightly pointed out that it does not in any way directly prevent anyone from looting the item before the missioner nor does it allow for any significant counter-play to the trespass. |
Riot Girl
You'll Cowards Don't Even Smoke Crack
2445
|
Posted - 2014.01.23 05:24:00 -
[8] - Quote
Abdul 'aleem wrote:It is that the missioner has few if any real options available to them and the risk of failure is disproportionate to that of the invader.
The invader has as much right to the loot as you do. If he gets the loot, then you have failed and that is because you are bad, not because the mechanics make it easier for him.
Oh god. |
Abdul 'aleem
Sumiko Yoshida Corporation
21
|
Posted - 2014.01.23 05:37:00 -
[9] - Quote
Riot Girl wrote:It doesn't need to be rebalanced. You already know thieves are a risk in this mission, so make preparations for that. Now it is balanced.
Yes it does need to be rebalanced.
The risk/reward equation is off no matter how you look at this issue.
The time/effort required by the missioner as well as the cost of failure is totally disproportionate to that of the mission thief/griefer.
Suicide ganking is... suicide? Resulting in the possible loss of the target ship and almost a guaranteed loss of your own.
Ganking is not a realistic option as the missioner would suffer further cost/risk to complete the same act, furthering the imbalance between the risk/reward to the missioner vs the risk/reward of the thief.
There is no reason that missioners should not be given a legitimate counter to mission invasion, especially for COSMOS and other unique missions for all of the reasons listed in the initial post. |
Riot Girl
You'll Cowards Don't Even Smoke Crack
2445
|
Posted - 2014.01.23 05:47:00 -
[10] - Quote
So basically your argument is that someone has spent months developing and refining a profitable playstyle and they're better at the game than you so they need to be nerfed.
Abdul 'aleem wrote:missioner would suffer further cost/risk
God forbid that you may incur some costs in fulfilling your desire to succeed.
Oh god. |
|
|
Abdul 'aleem
Sumiko Yoshida Corporation
21
|
Posted - 2014.01.23 05:48:00 -
[11] - Quote
Riot Girl wrote:Abdul 'aleem wrote:It is that the missioner has few if any real options available to them and the risk of failure is disproportionate to that of the invader. The invader has as much right to the loot as you do. If he gets the loot, then you have failed and that is because you are bad, not because the mechanics make it easier for him.
Contesting the resource is not the issue.
And, yes, in this case it is because the mechanics make it easy for the thief with little to no risk.
The mission theft scenario, particularly in the Wei Tadaki mission, meets all of the criteria for being an exploit save one: CCP has not officially stated that it has unintended consequences outside of the original design.
However, as was discussed in the Missions & Complexes thread, the fact that CCP does in fact reset this mission is a measure of proof that they do indeed recognize a problem.
Instead of resetting the mission or eliminating the possibility of mission theft, this suggestion would allow for a greater measure of counter-play and adjust the risk/reward equation for all parties involved.
This is entirely a game balance issue and the lack of legitimate counter-play options for the missioner is one of the main problems. |
Riot Girl
You'll Cowards Don't Even Smoke Crack
2445
|
Posted - 2014.01.23 05:50:00 -
[12] - Quote
Abdul 'aleem wrote:However, as was discussed in the Missions & Complexes thread, the fact that CCP does in fact reset this mission is a measure of proof that they do indeed recognize a problem.
This is a problem. They should stop resetting the mission.
Oh god. |
Abdul 'aleem
Sumiko Yoshida Corporation
21
|
Posted - 2014.01.23 05:51:00 -
[13] - Quote
Riot Girl wrote:So basically your argument is that someone has spent months developing and refining a profitable playstyle and they're better at the game than you so they need to be nerfed.
As much as adding any suspect flag was a nerf, I suppose the same would apply here.
If your conclusion is that it won't be so easy or relatively risk/cost free for the mission thief/griefer, well, yes you are probably right.
Adding a little more risk to the criminal act by correctly placing the flag at the start of the theft sequence is not going to break the game though. |
Abdul 'aleem
Sumiko Yoshida Corporation
21
|
Posted - 2014.01.23 05:54:00 -
[14] - Quote
Riot Girl wrote:Abdul 'aleem wrote:However, as was discussed in the Missions & Complexes thread, the fact that CCP does in fact reset this mission is a measure of proof that they do indeed recognize a problem. This is a problem. They should stop resetting the mission.
Although only CCP knows for sure, I suspect that they recognize that the act of mission theft, especially in this particular mission, has unintended consequences.
|
Riot Girl
You'll Cowards Don't Even Smoke Crack
2445
|
Posted - 2014.01.23 05:55:00 -
[15] - Quote
Why should he get a criminal flag when he hasn't committed a crime? Why should mission runners be allowed to bypass core mechanics that the rest of us are forced to abide by?
Oh god. |
Riot Girl
You'll Cowards Don't Even Smoke Crack
2445
|
Posted - 2014.01.23 05:56:00 -
[16] - Quote
Abdul 'aleem wrote:Although only CCP knows for sure, I suspect that they recognize that the act of mission theft, especially in this particular mission, has unintended consequences.
The item is available on the market. The only consequence is higher costs for players who lack initiative. There is nothing unfair about that.
Oh god. |
Abdul 'aleem
Sumiko Yoshida Corporation
21
|
Posted - 2014.01.23 06:05:00 -
[17] - Quote
Riot Girl wrote:Why should he get a criminal flag when he hasn't committed a crime? Why should mission runners be allowed to bypass core mechanics that the rest of us are forced to abide by?
Trespassing is criminal act, again this has been discussed in the original Missions & Complexes thread.
And it is rightly identified as such.
As is stated in the initial post, the start of this particular criminal act is the decision to warp into another person's mission pocket without permission and without having a legal justification to do so (fleet member, WT, kill rights, etc).
To wait until the actual item is stolen for the flag to be placed onto the criminal does not reflect that they actually started the crime when they decided to scan and warp to the pocket with the intention to commit the criminal act.
No mechanics are being bypassed in any way by anyone. Nor is that being suggested.
If you would take the time to qualify your comments instead of speed posting wild accusations, I would be happy to attempt to respond to them all. |
Riot Girl
You'll Cowards Don't Even Smoke Crack
2445
|
Posted - 2014.01.23 06:08:00 -
[18] - Quote
They're not trespassing. They're in NPC space.
Oh god. |
Paranoid Loyd
336
|
Posted - 2014.01.23 06:09:00 -
[19] - Quote
Riot Girl wrote:Abdul 'aleem wrote:It is that the missioner has few if any real options available to them and the risk of failure is disproportionate to that of the invader. The invader has as much right to the loot as you do. If he gets the loot, then you have failed and that is because you are bad, not because the mechanics make it easier for him.
Riot Girl, you're beautiful, when you argue. 
Abdul read my signature, and try to understand what eve is....
"PvE in EVE is a trap to turn you into PvP content, don't confuse it for actual gameplay." Lipbite |
Abdul 'aleem
Sumiko Yoshida Corporation
21
|
Posted - 2014.01.23 06:13:00 -
[20] - Quote
Riot Girl wrote:Abdul 'aleem wrote:Although only CCP knows for sure, I suspect that they recognize that the act of mission theft, especially in this particular mission, has unintended consequences. The item is available on the market. The only consequence is higher costs for players who lack initiative. There is nothing unfair about that.
No this is not a true statement.
The item is not always on the market, for various reasons.
And, again, this is not the issue.
The issue is that there is little to no counter-play currently available to the missioner. |
|
|
Paranoid Loyd
337
|
Posted - 2014.01.23 06:18:00 -
[21] - Quote
Abdul 'aleem wrote:Riot Girl wrote:Abdul 'aleem wrote:Although only CCP knows for sure, I suspect that they recognize that the act of mission theft, especially in this particular mission, has unintended consequences. The item is available on the market. The only consequence is higher costs for players who lack initiative. There is nothing unfair about that. No this is not a true statement. The item is not always on the market, for various reasons. And, again, this is not the issue. The issue is that there is little to no counter-play currently available to the missioner.
The counter is becoming the hunter instead of the hunted
"PvE in EVE is a trap to turn you into PvP content, don't confuse it for actual gameplay." Lipbite |
Riot Girl
You'll Cowards Don't Even Smoke Crack
2454
|
Posted - 2014.01.23 06:25:00 -
[22] - Quote
Abdul 'aleem wrote:The item is not always on the market, for various reasons.
Buy it from the thief.
Quote:The issue is that there is little to no counter-play currently available to the missioner.
Tornadoes. If a thief can warp in and loot, why can't you just do the same? Why can't you do it with a cloak so you can't be scanned down? I don't know how the mission works, but I'm pretty sure there are plenty of ways to deal with this situation if you use your imagination.
Oh god. |
Abdul 'aleem
Sumiko Yoshida Corporation
21
|
Posted - 2014.01.23 06:29:00 -
[23] - Quote
Riot Girl wrote:They're not trespassing. They're in NPC space.
This has also been covered in the Mission & Complexes thread.
The mission pocket is a private space created and assigned to a specific player as a result of their individual interaction with a mission agent
The lack of a beacon or a pre-existing structure is a sign of this
The fact that no one can see the location in their overview is a further sign of this
In fact the only way to access the site is to scan the owner's or another authorized player's ship in the pocket and warp to them which is a third sign that it is not a public space.
It is trespassing and it should trigger an appropriate criminal flag when the decision is made to trespass. |
Riot Girl
You'll Cowards Don't Even Smoke Crack
2454
|
Posted - 2014.01.23 06:33:00 -
[24] - Quote
Abdul 'aleem wrote:The mission pocket is a private space
No it isn't. It's in empire space.
Same answer.
Your notion of what should be considered private is flawed.
Oh god. |
Abdul 'aleem
Sumiko Yoshida Corporation
21
|
Posted - 2014.01.23 06:34:00 -
[25] - Quote
Riot Girl wrote:Abdul 'aleem wrote:The item is not always on the market, for various reasons. Buy it from the thief. Quote:The issue is that there is little to no counter-play currently available to the missioner. Tornadoes. If a thief can warp in and loot, why can't you just do the same? Why can't you do it with a cloak so you can't be scanned down? I don't know how the mission works, but I'm pretty sure there are plenty of ways to deal with this situation if you use your imagination.
Why not just make the criminal suspect when they actually begin the crime?
PvP is good. Counter-play is good.
Why should mission thieves/griefers be so scared of going criminal when they warp in?
|
Erotica 1
Krypteia Operations
CODE.
3283
|
Posted - 2014.01.23 06:34:00 -
[26] - Quote
Abdul 'aleem wrote:Riot Girl wrote:They're not trespassing. They're in NPC space. This has also been covered in the Mission & Complexes thread. The mission pocket is a private space created and assigned to a specific player as a result of their individual interaction with a mission agent The lack of a beacon or a pre-existing structure is a sign of this The fact that no one can see the location in their overview is a further sign of this In fact the only way to access the site is to scan the owner's or another authorized player's ship in the pocket and warp to them which is a third sign that it is not a public space. It is trespassing and it should trigger an appropriate criminal flag when the decision is made to trespass.
Oh my goodness, the tears in this thread from you are just overflowing every bucket around. Riot Girl has made some very good points and you just keep coming back with more tears. "It's not fair, blah blah." Guess what? That's how Eve is. Get used to it, learn, adapt, or rage quit.
See Bio for isk doubling rules. If you didn't read bio, chances are you funded those who did. |
Paranoid Loyd
337
|
Posted - 2014.01.23 06:35:00 -
[27] - Quote
Abdul 'aleem wrote:
The mission pocket is a private space created and assigned to a specific player as a result of their individual interaction with a mission agent
The lack of a beacon or a pre-existing structure is a sign of this
The fact that no one can see the location in their overview is a further sign of this
In fact the only way to access the site is to scan the owner's or another authorized player's ship in the pocket and warp to them which is a third sign that it is not a public space.
It is trespassing and it should trigger an appropriate criminal flag when the decision is made to trespass.
This is and always has been a sandbox! 
What you are describing is the antithesis.
"PvE in EVE is a trap to turn you into PvP content, don't confuse it for actual gameplay." Lipbite |
Abdul 'aleem
Sumiko Yoshida Corporation
21
|
Posted - 2014.01.23 06:35:00 -
[28] - Quote
Riot Girl wrote:Abdul 'aleem wrote:The mission pocket is a private space No it isn't. It's in empire space. Same answer.
Yes it is?
The space is created from the action of the player and for the player to complete an action IN Empire space. |
Erotica 1
Krypteia Operations
CODE.
3285
|
Posted - 2014.01.23 06:37:00 -
[29] - Quote
Abdul 'aleem wrote:Riot Girl wrote:Abdul 'aleem wrote:The mission pocket is a private space No it isn't. It's in empire space. Same answer. Yes it is? The space is created from the action of the player and for the player to complete an action IN Empire space.
What system is this in again? It matters.
See Bio for isk doubling rules. If you didn't read bio, chances are you funded those who did. |
Riot Girl
You'll Cowards Don't Even Smoke Crack
2455
|
Posted - 2014.01.23 06:37:00 -
[30] - Quote
Abdul 'aleem wrote:Why should mission thieves/griefers be so scared of going criminal when they warp in?
I doubt they are. Nothing would change because mission runners would still whine about not being able to fight in their PvE ships, then they'll complain and beg for more detrimental changes.
Oh god. |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 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 |