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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

This is a problem. They should stop resetting the mission.

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?

The item is available on the market. The only consequence is higher costs for players who lack initiative. There is nothing unfair about that.

They're not trespassing. They're in NPC space.

Buy it from the thief.


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.

No it isn't. It's in empire space.


Same answer.

What system is this in again? It matters.

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.

I'm pretty sure the space is always there, it's just the mission objects which are created. However, they are not created especially for you. You do not have ownership of that space, it belongs to an empire faction.

They'd just come and gank you seeing as you are also flagged as a criminal for trespassing.

how is it a criminal act right off the bat? there is no act committed yet. Hope you don't work in law enforcement.



The player could be testing out probing skills. Innocent as lets find ship, then warp to it. Not all have dual boxed alts to test this on.

TBH I have had this issue with paranoid asshats in 0.0.

WTF, why are you probing me?
Ummm....because I suck at probing ships and I am practicing. Chill, intel is clean and its dead for action now anyway.


Worried that much about it, run hard to find setups. I have a hard to find tengu. Above would not apply to me. As I know nooby noob did not jsut buy virtues (only way to find me) to give em a go day 1 of learning how to probe. If he comes in uncloaked I am actually happy he is there to flip cans. The more likely option he is a cloaked warp in for a gank squad seeing what shinies the tengu will drop.

I understand that you want rules to apply to everyone else except you.

The server triggers the spawn, probably when the mission is accepted.

You want other players to be flagged as criminals for engaging in the same activities as you are.

The problem here is that Riot Girl and I are using common sense, and you are looking around for an artificial rulebook, like we played some sort of ******* dragon card out of turn when you were due for it- or however you nerds play those stupid games. This is Eve.

I'll ask again, in what system, in what kind of space is this mission in? Nullsec? Lowsec? Highsec? This is a simple question. Do not make it hard.

No. So what?

So tell me how is the spawning of the mission site triggered?

No. It's irrelevant. Just because you requested the server spawn a mission site, that doesn't mean you are allowed to claim ownership of it. Well actually, you are allowed to but you need the balls to enforce it, which is something you are incapable of.

It is not a personal attack. It is an attack against a broad group of people whom I dislike. And I said nerd. Does that scare you?Get real. Again, you are searching around for some rulebook. Use common sense man. Let's pretend you and your pirate are actually characters on Star Trek. Who do you think is going to play the random red shirt that we never see again? I think everyone reading this knows the answer.

Since I was refreshing and seeing more comments, I do want to apologize for one thing I missed. Obviously we are talking about high sec.

Did you ask James 315 permission first to mission in his system? Did you buy a permit, and are you playing according to the Code?

*edit* You have 5 seconds remaining to respond. Are you afk?

WELL GUESS WHAT? THEY CAN!

Fine, they need the mission runner to be there. That still doesn't explain why the mission runner should be given their own pocket of space in empire.

I read that thread, and instead of the OP being happy he outsmarted the thief (even though it was reset) he complained about it.. because he had to do more effort to get the item.. which I find it highly disturbing considering he should be glad that he got the item after his hard work yet he complains and nags ?

Cosmos missions are pretty unique though, once in a lifetime, then again so are multiple ships that have been given away in the past years worth billions and they are also nonexistent due to their destruction, I think you should ENJOY this unique mechanic and find it a challenging reward when you finish it instead of changing the game.

Also, if at ever CCP decides to change it, how would a criminal flag even solve it? what if they ganked you AFTER you took the item?

I find it very disturbing that CCP decided to reset this mission..

I understand that, I just think it's a bad idea.

I still don't see why this is a problem. If that is the necessary action to achieve your goals, then so be it.

Also, I still haven't heard any kind of explanation for why the mission runner can't loot before the thief or why the mission runner can't use a cloak to avoid being scanned while they get the loot.

Because it changes core mechanics to satisfy players who lack their own initiative or creativity (i.e dumbing down). It also sets a precedent that CCP should change core mechanics just because they don't suit a small group of players, without any regard for how it affects the rest of the playerbase. Finally, it won't actually change anything. It's a waste of time.


That goes for all parties involved.

This is exactly why we need to do Sabriz's idea:

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=238931

The idea is essentially missions that pit player versus player. One player's mission is to steal the item, while the other must defend it.

That is a far more sandbox-breaking mechanic then simply assigning a suspect timer and allowing player driven interaction from there on.

Let's not lie to ourselves.

...


Why do you want counter-play options when you already know what is going to happen in advance? You shouldn't be planning to counter them, you should be planning a pre-emptive strategy.


He doesn't though. He assumes there should be no risk and he should be free from the influence of other players.

They do.

That's not how you do it, and yes, it is both plausible and financially viable.

The HTFU mechanic.


I'm pretty sure they're aware they're going to be criminally flagged before they steal the item.

Everything in Eve is impractical. It's kinda what separates the wheat from the chaff, so to speak.

And my point was you're just wasting people's time. Which you've proven. If you had any real argument or contribution you'd be providing it, and you aren't.

That mechanic was put in place by CCP when they created the missioning system.

I will grant you this: it is also intended for people to be able to invade that private space.

I am not trying to in any way change that.

The only thing that I am advocating is that the criminal flag be triggered when the actual criminal act is started, which in the case of mission item theft/griefing is when the decision is made to warp into and invade the private mission pocket generated for the mission runner.

This suggestion takes absolutely nothing away from the ability to trespass or steal a mission item, and it isn't intended to.

As I mentioned, it is really only to allow for counter-play from the initiation of the act of the crime not long after the act has been completed.

I'm not against ideas that create more PvP and more interaction (although I feel this idea is unlikely to do either). What I am against is carebears whining for mechanics to be changed to suit them because they're unwilling to make an effort when all the tools they need are provided for them. Forcing a criminal flag, as an idea on its own, has merit but it comes with a cost which affects everyone, not just you. There is no problem with the current mechanics. The problem is you.

To be perfectly fair, he is being kind of whiny, and his idea does punish people who normally might not intend any harm or foul play. It doesn't help that he keeps saying "Criminal flag" when I think he means "Suspect flag", since Criminal would imply everyone would get concorded for setting foot in another person's missioning space, which is kind of the worst idea imaginable.

Well there's this one rule in high-sec about when it's okay to shoot someone. It's kind of a big deal.

Riot Girl is kind of leading you on.

That said, she does have a point. Your trigger is far too broad and kind of makes it rough on a lot of occupations. Ninja salvagers, for example, while annoying, do wander through and salvage things because salvaging doesn't flag you as a suspect. It's a fairly "safe" way for exploration minded newbies to make isk early on, even if it is at another mission runner's expense. Keep in mind they only salvage, they don't steal loot items. If they went suspect for simply warping in, it would ruin their entire method of operation and offer less incentive to learn these skills.

And on that note, I've had days where I've been bored and scanned down someone's mission and just started salvaging for them, then dropped the can and abandoned it in front of them. Under your idea I've had gone suspect for my assistance and they could have shot me under the assumption I was stealing from them.

rofl, to be honest this entire thread is whiny.

On one side you have the missioner trying to protect their mission item and on the other you have what comes across like an alt of the thief desperately trying to protect their extortion racket.

It certainly seems that way, doesn't it? I've tried to stay pretty fair, keep the whine to a minimum and present actual arguments, but nobody seemed to acknowledge my idea, so ionno.

The mission item is in no way "protected" by the change that I am proposing. It can still be stolen. It is just that the thief is vulnerable to counter-play during the entire process of the theft and not protected by Concord until they actually take the item.

Does it surprise you that someone with a very limited knowledge of how the game works wants a thing changed when he doesn't understand the implications of such a change?

I thought people from backward countries such as yourself used google before posting as to not look the fool? Alternatively you could read basically every post in this thread that has shot down your terrible idea.

This is why I like the idea of making it not a suspect flag, but an extremely temporary kill right that you can activate. Make it anywhere between 10 to 25 minutes before it expires, and make it act like any other kill rights. You can sell it, make it public, activate it. It's your choice what to do with it, and by default, no harm is done to the person. I also feel it should be given and/or refreshed on the activation of an acceleration gate, rather than simply warping to the mission pocket. It gives the option for a warning message to pop up when you attempt to activate the gate (Which could be toggled) so the pirate and/or innocent have a chance to avoid making a mistake. Not to mention it allows for salvagers to scan down the site and salvage/loot after you've completed the mission without enduring any potential flags, as they won't need to use any gates.

Afraid isn't the term you're looking for. Perhaps if I spent time stealing mission loot then sure, but I'm a prolific suicide ganker & would largely be unaffected by this. The people that would be most affected would be the mission runners themselves. Giving them the ability to just shoot whoever lands on grid with them will have severe consequences that you clearly cannot comprehend, & of course, once that started happening more changes would be demanded. I would suggest you educate yourself on game mechanics before making terrible suggestions.

It's pretty obvious at this stage that you haven't read much of your own thread. I'm not in the business of telling people exactly how I do business. It's bad for business.

I don't know coding limitations within the game and what options exist. But, unless you do, perhaps there is a way that the game can identify that a DC'd player was legally in a specfic pocket to accomodate? Perhaps a tag that registers identifies the person who DC'd as having legal permission to be at the site when they warp back?

But, these types of objections are hypothetical and speculative. Ultimately, this is up to the limits of what can be programmed or not and how easily it can be done.

I believe that if the game has the ability to tag a ship and keep it in space after PvP, it can probably be coded to tag a ship/player and remember them as legally being in a specific mission pocket before a DC happens.

Ultimately the developers would have to comment on this though.

Right now there is an auto re-fleet mechanism in place after a DC so I am pretty certain that options exist that could manage DC issues.

Did you actually come up with any valid reasons why mission runners are not able to use cloaks to loot, or to loot before the thieves can, or to suicide gank the thieves or to negotiate a deal with them? If you can explain why these strategies can't work, you may have a stronger argument.

I've not read the whole thread since this has been raised before in others.

My view is that the risk involved for the looter is so minimal compared to the damage it causes the mission runner in failing the mission causes an imbalance.

Not in the game mechanics though as the looter is using (I was careful not to say exploiting) a valid game mechanic. The mission (and any other similar COSMOS) missions should be amended in some way so that only the capsuleer can collect the required item. Failing one mission usually results in standings loss which the capsuleer can recover from and learn from experience. In COSMOS missions failing will cut out a large chunk of game available to the player which seems distinctly unfair.

It also makes extortion too easy and nothing should be easy in eve. If necessary the item should be stored in a secure location on the mission site and the capsuleer issued a hacked access code to retrieve it.

In the meantime my only suggestion would be to make sure anyone in this mission saves the loot carrying NPC until last and kills them whilst right next to them to instaloot!

:effort:

I read it... I hadn't responded because sometimes you get to the point and are well aware you're just tying to push **** uphill with a stick.

But now that we're here, you've just thrown in more poorly though out ideas on ways to solve the bad side effects of your original bad idea.

If you want to know why your response is also a bad idea I challenge you to do some research. Go and investigate the reasons for the crimewatch rewrite & some of the issues they were trying to solve. (which you are now trying to reintroduce)

Actually I'll make things even easier for you:

Watch and understand this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g3jK-XZ2KnM
Read this: http://community.eveonline.com/news/dev-blogs/73443

How would the system decide if the person is entering for a legal reason or not? In empire you don't own any of the space, so who exactly would you get the permission from?



Yeah, because ganking freighters is effort-free.

I need no excuse to be lazy...It's genetic...

It can be traded between players.

I need no excuse to be lazy...It's genetic...

Edit: I hit post instead of return :D

More seriously I think in the case of COSMOS missions alone the missions themselves should be tweaked so that only the runner can get the required item as there is no way to recover the COSMOS arc if it is stolen. No mechanics changes required, just make sure a playeer can't be locked out of part of the game because they didn't realise that somebody could do that to them.

Of course and that is valid as a game mechanic, but due to the cost of the item in discussion it will be prohibitive to do so to many. Since as far as I understand it the COSMOS missions are to take you through some of the lore aspects of EvE and you lose the subsequent missions if you fail I can't help but think in these very specific cases there is a good reason to amend the item drop location to be secured.

Extortion is one thing, using game mechanics is fine for profit too, but cutting a section of game out because a player can't afford the extortion demands is borderline exploit (on the legal side by a gnats nudger in my opinion).

I only propose that the items in these instances are secured up in some way, not that the game mechanics are changed.

This would be like reading a book, being stopped by a phone call mid chapter and coming back to find the rest of the book had self-destructed because you didn't realize you only had a day to read the chapter you were in and the guy at the door got in the way (whilst demanding you pay him to let you close the door)

For perspective, how many freighters have you ganked?

If I remember correctly in this instance the thief is instalooting (almost nil risk) the item in question which is worth ~1.5 Bil and ransoming it for 500 mil. That would be outside many players immediate ability to pay, and they only have a day to do so or they lose *all* remaining COSMOS missions. That's why I am in favour of amending the mission itself in this instance.

Would it not be more reasonable to request CCP to have uncompleted COSMOS missions reset after downtime like every other mission? That is not only completely reasonable, but something literally no one would contest.

Exactly. The thief is flagging himself to be attacked by anyone. The mission runner is not. The thief receives a reward of 500m. The mission runner gets 1.5bn. I don't see how this is relevant to the issue though.

From experience, mission runners don't want counter-play options, they simply want to be left alone. The whole MTU debacle is a prime example of this mentality.

EDIT: 1.5b for 2 hours of plebian grinding? I'll have to run myself some COSMOS missions, I think there's some in nullsec.

Insta-warping where? He's not docking up and you've already said he's in an NPC corp so he doesn't have a POS.


It isn't. The thief has spent many hours developing and refining a playstyle to profit from your adversity to player interaction. If you spent a little time planning and working with others, he wouldn't be able to steal from you. The fact is, he's put the work in and you haven't so he deserves the reward and you don't.

We know from previous experience that it won't go down like this. People like me would love this change, mission runners would scream about it until CCP changed it & said change would likely be really terrible because bad ideas are CCP's thing.

#145Posted: 2014.01.23 11:06
#150Posted: 2014.01.23 11:16

Given the youtube vid of the dev session goes for 40+ minutes and you replied only 10 minutes after me it's clearly obvious you didn't even bother to educate yourself.

Ignorance might be bliss... but it's still ignorance

what drugs are you on?

no troll.

lol that's pretty funny.

i'll agree that mission runners can shoot people who warp into their missions on the assumption that if you warp into someones mission you're permitted to shoot them too. After all you're asking to be able to commit violence against someones ship it's only fair if they can do it to you too.

Just think of it like making all mission pockets into 0.0 space and concord have decided that deadspace pockets are too difficult to patrol so have decided to let pod pilots patrol them.

p.s. also people who warp into faction warfare sites should be marked up the same way i'm sick of having to lose sec status because some carebear wants to come play with us

ROFL, you wouldn't read it anyway.

also you seem lost... this is your thread, it's actually your job to prove to us why your change would benefit everyone.


Note: At the point of this post your idea has exactly.... 0 likes, that really speaks for itself

(We'll now assume any it gets shortly after are your alts)

Really? He provided a link to content which substantiated his claims.

Several people have explained quite clearly and politely what their objections are and why. Maybe read and acknowledge these instead of simply disregarding them in a provocative manner?

You even later admitted you didn't actually look at the content I linked to, after first posting that it contained nothing that backed my claims, implying you had.

Why not just make the thief suspect when they actually begin the crime?

PvP is good. Counter-play is good.

Why should mission thieves/griefers be so scared of going suspect when they warp in?

2. Crime may start with motive, but punishment does not start with summary execution. What you are suggesting is the right to outright kill anyone in the area you do not authorize to be there on suspicion of criminal intent.

Except you cannot determine why they are there until they actually do something. They do get flagged at the appropriate time.

You do not need the right to summarily execute people just because they happen to be in a place you don't like on simple suspicion that they may be intending to do something you don't want to something that you yourself don't have the right too at that time.

You have failed to give any sort of proper reason why you should have the right to shoot people simply for being in the same public space as you are. It all boils down to the point of ownership, and you are simply incorrect in assuming the space is yours just because you were given a location for it.

You know, I initially came into this thread to support your issue, just not your solution. That is done now, and you are actually slowing pushing my carebearish tendencies into actively hunting you down in game and shooting you just for being an annoying individual. Probably after I practice my probing skills finding you in a mission pocket just for the occasion. Every single time you regurgitate the assertion that you own the space due to the mechanics of accessing it you reveal yourself to be exactly the sort of whining incompetent that the PvP mouthbreathers claim.

Once again... if you want to claim that space as your own, provide a logical, in game and storyline consistent reason why the current owners listed at the top left of the screen gave it and everything in it to you to do with as you please. Arguing game mechanics while claiming storyline rights simply will not work. You cannot take the RP out of RPG.

While I, nor any other Player, can access the mission area, they are hubs of NPC activity used by the vast majority of the EVE universe on a daily basis. EVE is much more than a few thousand pod pilots ruling the spaceways. That sort of thing is what an RPG is all about.

Your argument is ignoring the RP part of MMORPG, and doing its best to forget the MM part as well. There is a difference between the out of character mechanics of game play, and the in game storyline that is supposed to be the heart of the game. PVE content is all about the RP in RPG.

You are wrong because you are trying to force out of game logic on in game storyline events. You do not, never have, nor ever will own that space. If you want to own space go forth into null sec and claim a patch of it. That is the nature of this game, and claiming otherwise due to the mechanics of how an encounter works will get you nowhere.

There is a difference between having the right to do something, and the ability. You are ignoring that.

Everyone has the right to access that space. Only the mission owner has the ability, because that space is the setting for an event in that characters story. You only own your own actions and your own ship--- the setting is part of the world and is owned by everyone.

Your argument is false because it is based on a false premise using unrelated facts to support a strawman conclusion.

*Snip* Please refrain from personal attacks. ISD Ezwal

if anything makes a mission belong to the mission acceptor its the fact that no matter who kills the NPC's the wrecks belong to the mission acceptor and his fleet. THAT god awful mechanic is the strongest argument that mission space is owned.

There is a difference between having the right to do something, and the ability. You are ignoring that.

Everyone has the right to access that space. Only the mission owner has the ability, because that space is the setting for an event in that characters story. You only own your own actions and your own ship--- the setting is part of the world and is owned by everyone.

Your argument is false because it is based on a false premise using unrelated facts to support a strawman conclusion.

I am now out of troll snacks, enjoy tilting at this particular windmill.

if anything makes a mission belong to the mission acceptor its the fact that no matter who kills the NPC's the wrecks belong to the mission acceptor and his fleet. THAT god awful mechanic is the strongest argument that mission space is owned.

I like that idea, with one modification. Everyone doing missions for the faction you are attacking should be able to buy or be given a killright on you. It would have similarities with faction warfare, but be more limited- but great fun for missioners.

They're owned by whoever has the power to claim ownership and enforce it. I can claim ownership of every mission site and enforce my claim by hiring an army of minions to suicide gank every mission runner who trespasses on one of MY mission sites. It's MY site, not yours.

if anything makes a mission belong to the mission acceptor its the fact that no matter who kills the NPC's the wrecks belong to the mission acceptor and his fleet. THAT god awful mechanic is the strongest argument that mission space is owned.

thats a better argument than urs. and it still doesnt mean ppl should go suspect for entering ur mission.

so what would you ask for on F+I when thieves start using cloaked ships and inties?

where would u like me to begin?

quoting the OP


inties and cloaks would still be able to take the item without being targettable until its too late, and it would be easy to pre align before taking the item with a cloak. Going suspect is little deterrent to most ppl who are aware of game mechanics. It certainly never stopped ppl looting wrecks in missions and sitting right out in front of you, or can flipping miners or providing neutral RR in war decs. Making them go suspect for entering the mission adds little to their risk and solves nothing of the problem ur experiencing. It only hurts salvagers; a profession deliberately allowed without criminal related consequences. CCP set that precedent years ago.

The fact that there are 12 pages on this subject is obsurd. just agree to disagree and leave it at that. OP voiced his opinion and several of you voiced yours, to such a degree i feel like im watching 2 lawyers battle it out over something rediculous like what kind of fence a neighbor is allowed to put up in his yard. Get over it.

Nah, the little red crosses who you're intending to blap own the mission pocket - you, as the missioner, are trespassing on their facilities!
Under you own logic, you're ok for a Suspect flag, right?

Two things concern me about your suggestion.

First up, it would have a detrimental impact on salvaging. It's a great newbie profession, one I enjoyed from my second month in the game. I quickly racked up my first 100 mil, learned how to probe, d-scan, evade fire through speed - all skills which I now use in low-sec. It was also encouraging that I could compete in some way against players much older than I was
Your suggestion would criminalize salvaging and CCP has repeatedly stated that they intended salvaging to be a legal activity.

Secondly, this idea of Suspect flagging for "trespassing"... when is the flag activated? When I click the warp button on your signature hit, or when I actually land in the mission area?
Mechanics-wise, this is a peculiarity as flags are triggered by performing an action on something, be it activating a module or moving an item from a can to cargo-hold. Your suggestion would make the Crimewatch mechanic more convoluted (remember why it was overhauled in the first place?) by introducing flagging for being in a particular area.
If the flag goes up when I click Warp, that could make me a valid target outside a station or near a gate... fair enough if I've been naughty, but at that point I haven't actually done anything!

Play Styles that would be harmfully effected if entering into another players mission pocket gave you a suspect flag:

1.) Ninja Salvaging: Suddenly all ninja salvagers would become suspects and open to being shot at.

2.) Vigilantes: These are players that "save" mission runners that get caught by mission baiters. The mission baiter usually goes suspect to get a mission runner to attack them, and when they get attacked and overpowered by the mission baiter they generally lose their ship. They can ask for help in local though, with the hopes that a vigilante will join the fight and attack the mission baiter (who is a suspect). You'll lose the few vigilantes that currently exist if they go suspect just entering the mission space.

3.) Grouping up for missions: Many friends group up to run missions together. This is done for many reasons like introducing a new player to the game, helping someone increase their standings, or just being social. If your "friend" suddenly goes suspect just entering the pocket, then any predator can follow them into the mission pocket and gank the suspect flagged friend.

These are just the playstyles I'm familiar with that would be brutally altered with your new mechanics, and I'm sure there are more. I don't see how protecting your princess is at all worth the loss of these playstyles.

As a salvager, I can tell you - yes, it would. The L4 missions are a great source for large wrecks.



I'm going into the pocket for the valid and legal reason of salvaging wrecks. This isn't a criminal act.
Your suggestion would make it so, which goes against what CCP have already stated on salvaging.

It's not going to happen, is it?

Depends on when the suspect flag is granted. If it is granted upon landing at the mission site, an unscrupulous player would kick a fleet mate before they landed on grid so they go suspect upon completing the warp.


The situation where the mission respawns at downtime will be a much better solution, as while they will undoubtedly be sucker-punched their first attempt, they can come back prepared on the second and third attempts. Furthermore, enterprising pilots will purposely run the mission multiple times to ascertain multiple princesses, thereby resulting in less expensive princesses on the market.

*edit* quit ******* around with the word criminal. A criminal act generates a criminal flag. A suspect act commits a suspect flag.

And truth be told, your solution of "make mission pockets combat arena's to protect mission objectives" will not solve your cosmos issues. In reality, most players running the cosmos missions will still be surprised by the invasion of their mission, and they will still be unprepared to defend the mission objective from combat ready invaders. In 95% of the cases, the result will still be the missioner fails to ascertain the mission objective and must pay the ransom to complete the mission.

I am not a pirate, a ganker, or a griefer, and resent the implication.

While you may not have stated "make mission pockets combat arena's to protect mission objectives", flagging players that enter "your" mission space has this exact effect. The stated conclusion, is completely valid, such that, in general, your rebalance will have little to no impact on critical mission item theft.

Yes, it adds counter play, and creates new interesting fight possibilities (which I do agree is a good thing generally). I'm just not convinced this is the best option, given the fact it hinders other game play avenues.

I will agree that it is an interesting avenue to be contemplated.

While you may not have stated "make mission pockets combat arena's to protect mission objectives", flagging players that enter "your" mission space has this exact effect. The stated conclusion, is completely valid, such that, in general, your rebalance will have little to no impact on critical mission item theft.

Yes, it adds counter play, and creates new interesting fight possibilities (which I do agree is a good thing generally). I'm just not convinced this is the best option, given the fact it hinders other game play avenues.

I will agree that it is an interesting avenue to be contemplated.

I doesn't matter that the thief can't shoot first. The only way a missioner can protect his objective with your solution is to shoot the then combat commences. The strong and prepared will still take from the risk adverse mission runner, and cries about "princess Wei" will continue. I'm not against your suggestion, I just don't think it will solve anything out of the box.

As a salvager, I can tell you - yes, it would. The L4 missions are a great source for large wrecks.

I'm going into the pocket for the valid and legal reason of salvaging wrecks. This isn't a criminal act.
Your suggestion would make it so, which goes against what CCP have already stated on salvaging.

By your logic every time a missioner warps into an empire navy mission they should go suspect, since empire ships are legal entities according to CONCORD, even if local empires disagree.

Abdul 'aleem, I spent the evening arguing this same subject in Missions & Complexes, I agree that the intention to warp to a mission site, not given to you by the agent, is a suspect worthy action. But I can tell the risk averse Piratey types in the game do not want their Income nerfed in any way whatsoever.

You know, you've never really addressed the core issue of your proposal. It requires action. A flag is pointless if no one ever fires on the suspect. Since no one can warp to your mission site without being flagged, who, besides you, is going to attack the suspect?

No one is scared of your proposed change. It hurts mission runners a lot more than it hurts gankers and thieves.

Ok, I'm interjecting here. So, let's break it down.

1) I do condone the allowance for item theft and the like in mission pockets, it adds good gameplay and is part of the freedom of the sandbox.

2) I also recognize that the OP has made, potentially, a valid argument and that if CCP has taken past intervention in this mission it sets a precedent for his position, regardless of whether or not one agrees with CCPs actions.

3) The reason I have said the OP provides a "potentially" valid argument for this situation is that I have not been able to find (online) the system in which this mission occurs. If this situation occurs outside of high sec space, then I would say that while the mechanics could be improved (allowing the mission to be repeated and the like, as mentioned on page 1) the missioner should take the initiative and attack someone interfering. Even if this means a sec status hit.

4) This said, if the mission does in fact take place in high sec (as is the impression I am getting from his posts) then I would say that the mechanics are in fact too heavily skewed against the one doing the mission as they cannot adequately take action against the intruding party without facing a concord response.

5) All things considered I would support, not a sec status hit, but suspect status for those entering mission/COSMOS deadspace complexes if they are not in fleet. There isn't a huge drawback to this mechanic, the interfering party is just more likely to get a gudfight as opposed to an easy mark. Chances are if you are entering someone else's mission zone your being a dirty thieving pirate, so act like one and be prepared for the consequences. I fully support such shenanigans in all areas of space, but I don't agree that such capsuleers should be, by proxy, protected by concord. That is to say, if you want to be a pirate, that's awesome, but you should not be shielded by game mechanics that skew engagements in your favor so much.

TL;DR This isn't a bad idea, as it would promote the chances of gudfights in high sec as opposed to concord protected theft. I would rather see the actual COSMOS mission mechanics improved, however, as this is clearly an outlier amongst missions and may not warrant a revisiting of crime mechanics.

But hey, that's just my thoughts, and I'm clearly biased towards wanting to see more gudfights in high sec as opposed to petty theft, so take it as you will.

The only thing I'm trying to protect is the basic core principle that suicide should be a defining mechanic of suicide ganking.

This opens up a new type of merc service for people who want to pop others in hi-sec. Go to a mission hub and cloak up in a mission, when a guy some sniffing around decloak and ambush.

OH. MY. GOD.

Truly, there are no tears like pirate/griefer/ganker tears.

What we have here is someone trying to earn a living (let's face it, no one does missions because they're INTERESTING). Someone else plans on interrupting their work and stealing the results. In the process of that theft, they (a) conspire, and (b) trespass into something that, were it not for the mission-runner interacting with an agent, would not otherwise exist.

Points (a) and (b) certainly amount to what, in the real world, would result in your detention and questioning by the police, to say nothing of being arrested, tried, and convicted.

What's been proposed here is a possible method of leveling the playing field, by making an uninvited intrusion into a mission pocket an act that would mark you as a viable target for the mission-runner.

And you guys are crying up a storm! Isn't greater opportunity for PVP what damned near every one of you guys are constantly asking for in these very same forums? Now, you're hiding behind CONCORD because, "Don't make MY fun harder or riskier, CCP, just those lazy, weak, wimpy hisec carebears!"

Personally, I feel that missions like this should spawn in more than one location - meaning that Princess Whatsherbitch can't simply camp one system, looking for a certain type of ship, and easily warp to that target, nearly certain of an easy, fat payday. Have them actually spawn in a system like Poinen or Osmon - that way, if you want to steal the mission loot/reward, you have to EARN it - work your butt off, put in some skull sweat.

Hey, you want to camp the place where the mission is given, note the player and shipname, go to several other BUSY systems looking for that player in local, scan the system, use D-scan to help isolate a result with a proper name, warp to it, and steal the loot, you've EARNED IT, and the mission-runner will have learned to do simple things, like changing their ship name.

In the meantime, keep on crying, guys.

*Snip* Removed reply to a deleted post. ISD Ezwal.

I skimmed thru the OP and skipped the replies, but I wanted to say this:

You are flirting dangerously close with a "bound item" solution, and I will absolutely never support that.

The key here is intention, if you scanned down a site with the intention of committing a 'Suspect' worthy act, then you deserve a 'Suspect' flag, your intentions deserve the appropriate flag.

How do you prove their intentions before they commit the crime?

This is so simple that anyone could easily grasp it, I don't understand the continued defiance to the idea, it protects the mission runner only if he is willing to fight for what is his. It adds a suspect flag to the invader, as is deserved due to his intentions in failing to ask for an invite, but if you're a piratey type this is nothing new, since you were going to get a suspect tag anyways as soon as you got there and found something to do to earn it (shoot MTU, loot wreck, yada, yada).

Salvagers would be safe, all they need to do is ask if they can salvage and get a fleet invite, or trust the Mission Runner will not engage a salvager (A Noctis is not a real imposing threat). Of the two I would trust a Mission Runner before the aforementioned Piratey type.

Riot Girl.
What I am getting is you don't like the idea because it flags suspects before they commit a crime; In your opinion.

But it is the opinion of everyone else that entering a site with the intent of 'taking it' (BTW; implies ownership other than your own) is in itself a criminal or 'Suspect' worthy act, we are only asking that the appropriate flag be applied to the appropriate action, nothing more.

This is because you haven't presented any argument other than, 'This screws my game play and I don't like it!'

Riot Girl.
What I am getting is you don't like the idea because it flags suspects before they commit a crime; In your opinion.

But it is the opinion of everyone else that entering a site with the intent of 'taking it' (BTW; implies ownership other than your own) is in itself a criminal or 'Suspect' worthy act, we are only asking that the appropriate flag be applied to the appropriate action, nothing more.

Yes this was true several pages ago for most objections.

From the start for some.

The quotes are fine the way they are.

Having read the entire thread, I have seen no substantiated point offered by you against this proposed change in the ROE.

And as you well know there is nothing a solo mission runner can do to prevent you from stealing the loot and warping out, since you are a suspect for half a second before engaging warp. The option of not accepting the mission at all, or waiting till you are not online to do the mission is available but by not stopping this extortion, I am promoting your type of game play and encouraging others to use the same style, thereby limiting chances of future success by new players in my chosen style. Of course the mission runner can attempt to gank you and loose his ship to concord but that's not really an option either is it?

That's why setting intruders to suspect will give the mission runner a chance to engage and protect what is his, and probably why you are so vehement against it.

I can guarantee they have put in a lot more effort than you or any of those other mission runners have. If they hadn't, this wouldn't even be a problem for you.

Do you think CCP just saw this guy one day and pointed him in the direction of the site and told him he could get free isk by hanging around there? Do you think they told him the methods he would need to use to succeed and gave him everything he needed? Of course not. He saw an opportunity no one else had and he exploited it. He came up with a plan, practised it, refined it and took all the necessary steps to make it functional and that is why he is winning. You are losing because you are not putting in even a fraction of that effort and you are not willing to either.

Actually, if this change came into effect, I'd stand to lose LESS ships because if I choose to suicide gank, I'm guaranteed to lose my ships. At least this way, the mission runner may shoot first and actually SAVE me money, and bypass the mechanics put in place to make suicide ganking balanced.

Perhaps the restriction against the use of Warp Bubbles in high security space could be waived when inside of a mission pocket?

That way a defender could simply drop the appropriate device as soon as the thief comes on station, thus preventing them from quickly leaving once they commit their crime, and without necessitating them to carry warp scramblers in their midslots.

I'm making judgements based on the opinions posted in this thread. It's hypocritical for you to mention it though, as you are making judgements about what I do, when you don't even know what I do.


Your arguments indicate otherwise. The fact you described suicide ganking as an impractical solution reflects that.


What limitation is that? I'm not the one crying to CCP because I'm so adverse to player interaction, that I can't bring it upon myself to get some friends or hire some guys to help me achieve my goals and laugh at my enemies when I succeed. That is enjoyable gameplay, you're missing out.

...

Fear them? Why? What are they going to do?

I have this kind of thing where I like to destroy people's arguments and see what kind of reaction I get from them.

Usually, people respond with immature coping mechanisms.

The 'I'm too important to waste time on the forums' coping mechanism - When you win an argument and the other person ignores your post and abandons the thread. This method is popular with people who don;t want to admit they are wrong, while giving the impression their lives are far too interesting to waste time arguing on forums.

The 'I know I've lost but I'm taking you down with me' coping mechanism - When someone loses an argument and knows they've lost but decides to sling as much mud at you as possible as a way to soften their own humiliation by trying to bring you down to their level.

The 'I refuse to admit I've lost so I'm going to stubbornly continue my argument' coping mechanism - This is when someone loses an argument, knows they've lost, but refuses to believe it. They will continue to argue vehemently, search for any scrap of bad evidence that will support their argument and resort to any available tactic that allows them to convince themselves they haven't lost yet. This person will usually argue until everyone gets bored and then they can tell themselves they won, but they're only lying to themselves.

The last one is the one I like best, which is just when someone acts in a civil manner, admits when they are wrong or apologises for their own lack of understanding and they lose the argument gracefully. They keep their dignity intact and earn the respect of those they are arguing with.

Right now, I'm guessing you're going to be the 'I refuse to admit I've lost so I'm going to stubbornly continue my argument' guy.

You seem to be basing the rationale behind your idea on the fact the Missioner owns the space and anyone who enters is trespassing and therefore should be suspect.

This is wrong.

The space you run the mission in is always there. That mission you are just about to accept? The space it takes place in is already there. The owner of that space is the NPC who owns the system.

I have and you are wrong.

Your whole presumption of 'ownership' is flawed.

Yes, NPC's are owned and if someone steals from a wreck they go suspect.

Whats that got to do with the space the mission is run in. It exists before the rat was spawned for you and it exists after the rat has died and been salvaged and looted.

If you read the whole post, you'll see I've just disproved it.

You are wrong. Sorry you don't like that.

Yes I have.

The mission pocket is always there, only mission items and structures are spawned for the player when the mission is warped to.

I wonder if its possible to have a mission spawn on top of a bookmark some one has already made?

You want people to go suspect for warping to an area of space because you own it and they are trespassing. That space was there long before you accepted the mission.

Yes, I have read the whole thread.

You're wrong.

I have pointed out why you are wrong. Using your 'proofs' you can only claim ownership of the mission structures and items, yet you want to claim ownership of the space.

That space is always there, some of my best safe spots were originally missions. That space still exists even though the mission does not.

I am suggesting that CCP treat the mission pocket space assigned to and created for the missioner, especially COSMOS and other unique mission pockets, as belonging to the missioner. The following game mechanics support the claim that the mission pocket does in fact belong to the missioner and validate the suggestion that they be treated as such:

1) The mission pocket space is created as a result of private and individual interaction between the player and their mission agent for the purpose of that player completing an assigned task

2) it is impossible for any player to access a mission pocket owned by another player without action from the owner (the player can exercise his ownership rights to deny access to his mission site by simply staying docked, among other things)

3) the game assigns ownership of all wrecks in the mission space to the missioner and his fleet regardless of who kills them

4) the player owning the mission site can exercise their right of ownership to destroy the site by simply choosing the "fail" option available exclusively to them


Which don't you understand?

That is wrong the space is always there, its the mission items/structures that are created for the player.


Yes they can, a player can access any area of the solar system which a mission can spawn in. Its the mission items/structures they can't access.



Yes. Any player stealing form the mission runner should and does go suspect.



They can despawn all the mission items/structures by failing or finishing the mission. Unless of course someone is on grid with them.
Which don't you understand?

So you are not interested in a discussion about your idea?

Fine. You should look at yourself before calling other people trolls.

+1 for the OP. I fully support and endorse this proposal. It is well thought out and concise.


Those posting in opposition are failing miserably trying to come up with reasons not to implement a suspect flag for Mission Invasion. Hell, even the term sounds aggressive :



As for ownership, the mission pocket actually belongs to the Agent who is offering it to the player. Once the player accepts the mission offer, that player is now held accountable for it. That, in all intents and purposes, makes the mission runner the owner regardless of the Sov listed in the top left corner of the screen. Usually the actual site itself doesn't spawn until the Mission Runner initiates warp.

There's only a couple of Cosmos Missions that actually spawn the site when accepted such as the 2nd mission of Cosmos Agent - Drone Mind. That mission spawned a site with a visible warp beacon on Overview which anyone could access. CCP has just recently programed that site to spawn multiple times in multiple systems all at the same time due to other players constantly completing the site causing Cosmos Mission Runners to either fail or pay exorbitant prices for the objective item. The same goes for a couple of other Cosmos Agent missions which have visible beacons in Overview.

Anyway back to topic, doesn't matter if it's a Ninja Salvager or Suicide Ganker who enters the site, it's still an invasion which is an aggressive act. Those who think Ninja Salvagers should be exempt or are trying to use that as a reason to dismiss the OP's proposal need to seriously do some research on the terms used :



A true Ninja Salvager would never be seen by the Mission Runner. As such a Suspect Flag wouldn't matter. Most of the so called 'Ninja Salvagers' in this game now are nothing more than Mission Invaders. They obviously aren't very Ninja like at all and have no problem taking loot to get flagged in order to provoke PvP action. So the Suspect Flag is again not a problem.

As for new players, the safety system is set to full (green) right from the start. They wouldn't be able to warp to the site since that would be a suspect action, thus there wouldn't be any accidents happening. All players have the option to change their safety settings from Full (green) to allow suspect acts (yellow) or to perform criminal acts (red). If they do so, ignorance of consequences for those actions can not be used as an excuse.


DMC

Ownership of mission pocket is completely irrelevant and speaking about it, only derails the tread.
I dont see a reason in changing wide affecting game mechanics, only to have issues in a single mission solved.
Change the mission instead, as has been proposed by some in here.
- Mission respawn after downtime
- Move away from static mission location
or, add scamming rats holding everyone in place

They can despawn all the mission items/structures by failing or finishing the mission. Unless of course someone is on grid with them.

You seem to be confusing space with mission items/structures.

What have POS's got to do with anything? Who owns the space the POS is in is in the system info top left of screen. Or are you saying if you warp on grid with a POS you should go suspect?


The same way you get to any point in space. Its the mission structures/items you can't get to until the missioner undocks and warps to the location.


NO its not. Its proof that the game recognizes that the wrecks are owned by the missioner, but not the salvage.


Its the structures/items that are despawned(destroyed). The location remains.

You are getting the location in space confused with the items that are in that space. Which is why having people go suspect just for entering a location is a bad idea.

1) The proof is top left of the screeen.
2) The proof is I have safespots in location where missions occurred and the mission is no longer there but the safespot is.
3) The proof is shown on the wrecks and on the overview.
4) The proof is if a missioner despawns the items/structures with another pilot on the grid. The Structures/items do not despawn and any bookmarks still work.

Stop confusing to different things.

Mission items/structures are not the same thing as a location in space. Its an important distinction when you want people to go suspect when the warp to a location.

Lets not forget sov. nulsec. Now there is space that is owned by players. Are you suggesting anyone trespassing in sov. nulsec should have a suspect timer?

Not much of an issue when entering, but if everytime you leave a sov. system to empire space (Hisec systems especially) you have to sit out a 15min suspect timer for trespassing. You'll end up with camps both sides of an hisec entry system.

It would be very silly.

Having people go suspect for trespassing is not a very good idea.

TLDR

Game balance is off. Add a suspect flag for trespassing that is triggered when the act of mission item theft is initiated (when the illegal warp into the mission owner's site begins) not only after the item is looted.

There is no reason that a mission thief should have Concord protection after they invade another player's mission space and while they are waiting to loot the mission item.

Once again your confusing mission items/structures with the location. That is a very important distinction to make when proposing giving players a suspect flag for warping to a location.

Even putting aside your flawed idea of ownership. Having people go suspect for warping to a location is a bad idea.

Salvaging is a profession CCP designed so you did not get any flags for doing. Your idea would effect them greatly.
I'm hunting a war target, I see them undock and warp to a safe. After scanning them down I warp my fleet to them only to find they were the other Vargur and the whole fleet goes suspect.

Having suspect flags based on warping to a location is a bad idea.

You really don't understand the idea or are deliberately thread crapping.

Another Princess Achaja alt?

Two things concern me about your suggestion.

First up, it would have a detrimental impact on salvaging.

...

Your suggestion would criminalize salvaging and CCP has repeatedly stated that they intended salvaging to be a legal activity.

...

Having people go suspect for warping to a location is a bad idea.

Salvaging is a profession CCP designed so you did not get any flags for doing. Your idea would effect them greatly.
I'm hunting a war target, I see them undock and warp to a safe. After scanning them down I warp my fleet to them only to find they were the other Vargur and the whole fleet goes suspect.

Having suspect flags based on warping to a location is a bad idea.

Wow go to work come home and the same argument from a new toon.

Requesting a change to allow for the 'Intent to do harm' as a suspect flag is a reasonable change IMO considering the evolution or changes in the game that have adversely effected mission runners and their relative high-sec safety.

As we play (As a community) we get better at everything, this falls to both sides of the board, and a better criminal requires better controls, just like better ISK earners required a nerf to bounties to maintain balance.

This suggestion is simply an overdue balance.

Enough with the name calling.

You are still making presumptions about ownership.

You are suggesting making people suspect just for warping to a location. That is a very bad idea.

When I first started I used to salvage mission wrecks. I would scan down a likely ship, warp to the site to find out who was in there and ask them if I could salvage. Under you idea that would give me a suspect flag. That is a bad idea.

Someone scanning for a war target they, they know the guy is in a Maelstrom (insert ship of choice) I find 3 on scan. I pick the wrong one and I go suspect.

Its a very bad idea to have people suspect flagged just for warping to a location.

Do you honestly believe warping to a location should give you a suspect flag?

I have. Just so you understand The other 2 Maelstroms that are missioning are not war targets. So if I warp to them I will become a suspect under your idea.

Try reading your idea yourself you seem confused about what you are suggesting.

There is also the issue of war targets hiding in mission sites. They use an alt to start a mission, fleet up the at war main and stay in the mission. Anyone who tries to find them ends up going suspect because the alt 'owns' the site.

Ok. That answers the problem of warping to the wrong target when hunting for a war target. It still steps on the toes of salvagers.
Post 262 if it doesn't link correctly You want to give players a suspect flag for 'doing nothing wrong'.

edited and reposted for clarity:

This suggestion does not criminalize salvaging at all. It only makes mission invasion/trespassing a suspicious act. Salvaging wrecks would not be criminal or suspicious at all. But, choosing to invade the missioner's site without permission to get that salvage would be a "suspcious act" and you would be flagged if you choose to do it (again without permission).

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.

A suspect flag for trespassing just puts the decision to salvage in a mission owner's pocket without permission on par with the decision to salvage in WH, Low Sec or Null Sec space. They are never forced to go into any of these areas to salvage nor are they prevented. If the salvager chooses to enter these areas or invade a mission owner's space because the reward (ISK value of salvage) is higher, there is nothing wrong with it carrying a slightly higher level of risk.

In the end, the innocent salvager will only need to contact the missioner to get permission to salvage the site. The salvage thief/griefer gets the flag. If the site is empty/vacant/abandoned, the risk to any of them is almost zero.

An unintended bonus of adding a suspect flag for trespassing may be that it creates the opportunity for salvaging players to experience the risk/excitement associated with salvaging in high risk/high reward areas like WH, Low and Null without actually exposing them to the full risk of being in those areas....



You have committed what is defined in RL as "trespassing" and it is a crime because you did so without the owner's permission.

For clarity: IRL you cannot legally go into my house without permission to get a drink of water, even though getting a drink of water is legal.

In-game terms: salvaging is legal and remains so... choosing to trespass/invade a missioner's pocket without permission is suspicious.

I am asking that CCP correctly identify the act of trespassing/invasion into a mission owner's space as a suspicious act and generate the appropriate suspect flag.

Sorry for confusing you by crossing RL terms and game terms.


TLDR

Salvaging is and always will be a legal act.

The chosen locations will carry risk.

If a suspect flag is generated for tespassing/mission invasion, choosing a missioner's space as the location for salvaging would just have the same risk as choosing to salvage in any other area with a higher risk/reward equation (WH, Low, Null).

Yes, they would have to go suspect to warp to the war target. Or chose not to warp to the war target which means he is safe and avoiding the war.

Giving suspect flags to people just from warping to a location is a very bad idea.

Any and every mechanic that favors or rewards social isolation in a massive and multi-layered multi-player game is an exercise in futility. This is not a matter of "forcing my playstyle on you", its just a mentality problem stemming from a bad tutorial and legacy mechanics that stifle interaction.

If you want me to be blunt, the answer is pretty simple. Adapt or Perish. Everyone else does.

No its not. The alt is not at war and the main, who is at war is hiding in the alts mission. Under your idea they would have to go suspect in order to catch the war target.

I have I suggest you do too. You seem confused by your own idea.

On that basis we should make all mission runners go suspect as soon as they undock. After all its just the same as mission running in other risky space.

See how daft that would be.

Edit- and back to insults. seriously??

How would that make me scared? If you shoot me It would give me the opportunity to gun you down without CONCORD interference by myself, and without needing a couple of friends/alts for suicide ganking.

I am talking about a mentality problem here.

The presumption of ownership is based on all the given facts, if CCP intended something other than ownership of the site then wrecks would all be blue, and rats would be available on D-scan as soon as the mission is accepted (For missions with prespawned rats). So based on that the change in Rules of Engagement are simple and justified.

If your scanning down a War target and not using a scout to verify.. well just NO.

How? Pirates in HS go out of their way to get a limited engagement with missioners, thus using cans, MTUs, wrecks and anything else they can to become a suspect and provoke a reaction...I don't really understand what you are trying to say here.

I'm -10, therefore anyone can shoot me at any time. So take note of that before you go down the 'are you scared' argument route.

You're idea regards ownership is bad. Flagging those who warp in suspect, will not help you stop people removing your mission item. It may in fact, create more issues for you. Some have already be suggested.

It's also bad because it renders the mini profession of salvaging, a suspect act. Which it isn't and never was intended to be.

So no, it's simply a bad idea. A reset after DT sounds far more reasonable.

I have read the thread and your proofs are your opinion only. They are based on how you view the game, not how the game is designed.
The fact you keep clinging to these opinions as somehow the only legit ones here is funny, but not factual.

And no, if I decide to probe you out to enact the mini profession called 'salvaging', then your idea does make me suspect. No amount of dodging that fact, changes it.

You have options now, I find it abhorrent you refuse to use the tools already provided and instead ask for the game to change instead. A change that will actually be bad for missions runners, not good.

Yes i am very concerned about this.
I was redirected to this thread where i hope to have this addressed.

As i understand it you want theifs and pirates to be suspected when they come into a mission but then you went on to say about mercs and vigilants who can come in and start fighting each other in my mission. I do not want this becsuse there are triggers and aggro to manage and this fighting will mess it up.
I hope this is understandable concern.
I would like to know how the suggestion will stop this.
my questions in missioner forum have gots likes from other missioners so others would like to know too.

Proofs?
Sorry I dont understand - ive explained what i'm worried about - suspected theifs will attract mercs and vigilants to fight them and i dont want them in my mission.
i wish my english was better does anyone else know what im trying to say and help explain?

thank you Archibald and Mags, that is correct.

Abdul, again, i understand that player warping to the mission not invited will get suspected.
Mercs and vigilants looking to fight them will also come in. I will not invite them because i dont want them to mess up the mission. Please, how will your suggestion prevent it?

So now what? No one will be flagged?
It's not hard to see the out come of your idea. That those you do not like, WILL be flagged. Therefore people will most likely use your mission as a fighting ground. Chances are this will also lead to far more missions runners losing ships, as well as mission items.

Tell me what you understand the basis of the suggestion to be, in your own words.

I have just done that!
I am starting to think that their is no answer

Can you counter Estella's point?
So far I've been with you until she raised this.
I don't want my mission turning into a free-for-all for high-sec pvpers!

Really??

He means he agreed with you, up until someone raised the issue of lots of people using his mission for a pvp brawl.

I have explained my understanding of youre suggestion!
These are my first posts on eve forums because of your post on missioner forums. I read this thread on the features forums and i undestand that you suggest suspecting players who warp to mission because they are going to theif the loot. At first i agree with this but mercs and vigilants can also come in to shoot the theifs. they will mess the mission up.
Please can you think of a way of avoiding this?

I have explained my understanding of youre suggestion!
These are my first posts on eve forums because of your post on missioner forums. I read this thread on the features forums and i undestand that you suggest suspecting players who warp to mission because they are going to theif the loot. At first i agree with this but mercs and vigilants can also come in to shoot the theifs. they will mess the mission up.
Please can you think of a way of avoiding this?

You keep answering my question with quesitons. I dont believe you have an answer.
I have thought about this and I think everything is ok as it is. I only ever see 1 theif in my missions and he went away after a while.

There is no deception here. The proposal is flawed. Accept it, and figure something else out.

Seriously, PVPers would love your proposal as it would give them another way to possibly inflict unwanted PVP onto hisec carebears.