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

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.

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.

missioner would suffer further cost/risk

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.

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 not always on the market, for various reasons.

The issue is that there is little to no counter-play currently available to the missioner.

The mission pocket is a private space

It is trespassing.

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

The mission site is created from the action of the player and for the player to complete an action IN Empire space.

How do you think that they are created?

I think that you may not understand the original post.

What, or in this case "who" triggers the event that spawns them?

If you can elaborate on your accusation with maybe the basis for it, that would be helpful in moving the conversation forward.

How is the mission accepted?

Is it a public action?

Maybe re-read the initial post for clarity. I believe it will help.

If it is a public space, and is intended as such, anyone at any time should be able to access it.

Do tell how to get to a mission pocket spawned by a missioner when, they say, do not undock and never go to that pocket?

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.

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.

Why is it bad?

let's be real, the reward for success is pretty worth that added risk still.

Because they may not even have the opportunity because CONCORD silently looms over their shoulder.

It's not changing any core mechanics

the missioner has little to no options to counter

counter-play options

But, if it is ok that the missioner assume a level of risk proportionate to the reward

it is also ok for the mission thief/griefer to assume a an amount of risk proportionate to their own potential reward.

Because it's totally plausible and/or financially viable for a missioner to warp out, acquire a Catalyst, Trasher, Tornado, or Naga, warp back, and find the potential pirate still there waiting to be shot, then shoot them and sit out of their timed mission while their criminal timer ticks down.

If you're going to suggest that, it's only fair that mission income be jacked to by 10x the current amount so it's a viable option.

CONCORD doesn't let us kill suicide gankers before they gank, that's what he meant.

Oh? Do explain, in great detail, how it's done and how it's plausible and financially viable, then. I'm quite curious about this, after all, missioners are such huge iskmakers, it's not like running missions is the next step up from mining in terms of income or anything. I'm sure incursions and Wormholes pale in comparison to the massive, fat wallets of the missioners, who are capable of suicide ganking pirates again and again as a deterrent to make sure they never do such horrible things again.

What are the mechanics that you feel are so drastically threatened?

And, no they really don't as illustrated in the initial post.

Plausibale doesn't equal practical.

That's the reason there is little to no risk.

The flaw in your logic is finding a buyer for said mission item, and if they're willing to pay that price, and that's assuming you don't have competition that's willing to sell it for cheaper. It's easy to raffle off a number and say what you can do with it, but as anyone that's actually handled business transactions knows, it's far more complicated than that. Even then, if the mission item is worth 500 mil, how does that serve the missioner than needs it, intact, for the mission? How does this provide them with the isk to suicide gank thieves that would attempt to take the item that they need to sell to get isk to get a tornado to gank the thief that would attempt to take the item that they need to sell to get isk to get a tornado to gank the thief that would attempt to take the item that they need? You also have circles floating around in your logic.

I'll be content with the fact that I actually witnessed several gankers, griefers, "pirates" and thieves actually argue against a suggestion that would increase interplay and PvP.

We are all ears. Tell what mechanics you are so afraid will be so drastically changed.

So, you are saying that you don't want to be shot?

trying to protect their extortion racket.

Yes I believe these were addressed in earlier responses.

Read.

I know, right?

What's with all these gankers, griefers, "pirates" and thieves not wanting to do any work?

there is no way to recover the COSMOS arc if it is stolen.

It is an issue where the risk/reward to the missioner is extremely disproportionate to that of the mission thief/griefer.

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.

The criminal is most often getting flagged only after the loot is in their possession and then insta-warping.

ie the whole risk/reward equation and game balance is off.

The problem is that the mission runner cannot shoot the thief until they loot without CONCORD blowing them up for it (I think this mission is still in hi-sec). They literally have a split second to react to insta-blap the thief otherwise they will warp out with the loot to a pre-aligned safe spot. If the missioner cannot afford the ransom or to buy a new loot item they lose all COSMOS missions from that point onwards.

I think that you and I and everyone knows that there is no way to access a missioner's mission pocket if they draw a mission and never undock. That means that they are definitely not owned by the public.

No troll. No personal attack. No judgement. You are just wrong.

they trespass into another player's mission site?

It hurts no missioner because they never have to attack.

If a suspect flag is applied to mission invaders, as is suggested, the invader could be killed by anyone who accepts the missioner's fleet invite.

The missioner never has to attack. They just have that option immediately and everyone else in game does too.

Princess Achaja and her associates have been making lots of ISK from stealing mission items with little to no risk of counter attack for a long time.

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.

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.

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 :

[quote=Riot Girl]You keep stating this over and over perhaps you don't get the idea or it's too complicated, so let's simplify it. The mission does not exists until the character that accepted it 'The Mission' warps to it. This implies that the mission only exists for the one character, and is therefore not a public loot bin for anyone interested.

This is not impeding a capsuleers ability or right to fly anywhere they want

it is setting the mission space up as if it was a exploration site

it protects the mission runner only if he is willing to fight for what is his.

as is deserved

And we are not suggesting you can't. I just want the ability to shove 3000dps and a full rack of webs, and jams up your sanctimonious MWD as soon you enter a site you have every intention of taking from me. Rather than waiting till you have your optimal plan in place, rendering me incapable of retaliating.

This is exactly the point.

Read what you quoted... maybe a few times.

I am not sure why you would worry from he sounds of your arguments you have it set to yellow or red permanently.

As a public spawn site you should know these (DED complexes)are supposed to be contested

Now you're just being obstinate, with no real argument you're tilting at windmills.

Committing a crime is about Intent as well as the Act, Intent to kill is just as easy to prosecute as murder, you buy a gun, ammo, and black ski mask, show up at the guys house but are foiled by his yappy Chihuahua. Your still going to go to jail.

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 quite an accurate assessment.

That is already available to you, go to Nul find a system and claim SOV.

When a mission invader chooses to warp into another player's mission pocket, they are performing a "suspicious" act.

Conversely everyone else should have the right and ability to stop you.

That would partially explain why your arguments are flawed.

That's rich coming from you. Your argument? As of yet Whaaa is not applicable. You offer nothing but quip replies and vague Ad Hominem retorts, with no substance or direction just a desire to derail a solid rebalancing request of Rules of engagement for contested private mission loot.

You have yet to give a reason why an intruder to a mission site not owned by you (Your admission; ''take it'') should not earn a Suspect flag.

So by that standard CCP should redefine the ROE for mission sites rather than pander to the lowest form of criminal, 'extortionist' that regardless of you prolific post make up considerably less total revenue than the 'Carebear' quotient of the EVE online populous.

You are obviously on tilt. Edit your post so the quotes are set straight.

gg wp

the edits look great lol

(post #281 "edited by: Riot Girl")

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.

To be fair, Princess is making 700 mil per Wei Todaki theft and possibly supporting several accounts with the PLEX generated per month with little to no effort/risk currently.

He/she has a lot to lose.

Yeah, you're wrong. All spelled out in the original post for those who legitimately wish to know.

you yourself used the term "exploit."

And it is.

It's a broken mechanic and you are exploiting it.

It's time to fix it.

You will still be able to invade, it's just not going to be so easy and you may lose your ship occasionally.

You're a "pirate" so act like one.

You don't know anything about these people but your prejudging them to be failing at EVE because they don't do what you do

I have no compunctions going suspect and killing the pirate types

I interact with hundreds of players everyday and I made more ISK than you could spend in a 5 years without victimizing anyone. I can't imagine how limited your EVE experience has been with the limitation you set on yourself and everyone around you.

Try to remember, you sitting in a hole all day, every day, waiting for the next victim to support your desire to sit in a hole all day waiting for another victim, is not an 'I win button', and I will spend my last EVE voice and freedom to use that voice to relieve you of that button so you can actually learn to play and enjoy the rest of the game.

You should fear them, the ones you feel contempt for, but you seem to be to busy insulting them to realise they hold the key to everything you have attained, and from sounds of it, ever will attain.

Guys, patience, you obviously care about Jonas and he needs time to form his words....

Give him that.

The claim that this suggestion will automatically increase griefer activity in every existing mission pocket has not been proven in any way, and cannot because it is 100% dependent on player choice not suspect status.

I think we understand your opinons.

Others may not agree, which means you may be wrong.

Spam is defined as the repetitive posting of the same topic or nonsensical post that has no substance and is often designed to annoy other forum users.

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.

the fact you have to ask that questions shows that you are only willing to see this from your own ridiculously narrow minded perspective, and therefore aren't worthy of debate.

Loss of continuation on the COSMOS missions

Suspect flag for going into someone's pocket without authorization sounds fun. It would cause more pvp. Isn't that what pocket invaders want overall? Surely they aren't looking for easy targets and are scrub-tier pvpers.

In reality if this change ever happened this whole activity of mission griefing would probably drop off substantially and there wouldn't be enough targets to make ganking them worthwhile.

Yeah lots of people disagree with almost everything you posted, including this.

You realize how easily griefers could exploit the suspect timer?

All you need to do is accept a mission on you main, make a bookmark of the mission location an give it to an alt. You can now proceed to warp the victim to that location, which no one in the fleet has access to, and kill him when he lands without concord intervention.

This is just going to be the MTU "exploit" allover, griefers exploiting ****** mechanics to kill inexperienced players.

It's a dumb idea that don't even remotely solves any mission problems, except maybe for marauders pilots getting attacked by destroyers. In most other cases things remain unchanged, because the griefer would enable suspect him self, in the cases where it might give the mission runner an advantage any effect can be nullified by bringing 1-2 extra people.

Why do you care if high bears quit missioning (which they won't)? Why do you care if they can't grind isk as efficiently as before (which they will)?

I'd also love for you to explain how the suspect flags idea with missions (with missioners that roll with their babbysafety on green 24/7) will suddenly suffer MORE because of the change?

They'll never accidentally shoot suspects, and vigilantes are interested in player kills, so they'll come in and blow up other suspect flagged people, even other vigilantes.

This isn't the missioners problem

You actually think that the vigilantes are going to waste their time blowing up missioner wrecks especially the specific ones that matter instead of looking for more killmails?

As far as I know, a suspect flag doesn't make you immune to Concord action if you suicide gank.

If I am wrong, please correct me.

Otherwise, I believe that Concord will still kill you even after a suspect flag is applied for invading the mission.

How does this change prevent you from losing every single ship in a suicide gank? I've been suiciding for a long time now, longer than that character has existed and I don't know how this could change the dynamic from today. You can still bait people by stealing from a wreck to force suspect, this change wouldn't make it any different. You still get concorded if you attack them, suspect or not.

Ships are exploding around them that aren't theirs. Oh no! Looks like I can't finish this mission. Wouldn't want any stray bullets/lasers to hit my ship. Oh wait, that doesn't happen in eve. If anything, it would make the mission even easier than it already is because the rats would shoot players using webs, scrams and other ewar as that tends to draw a lot of hate from npcs.

So you know that your post is wrong and that you are spreading misinformation. You may want to edit it.

They are not more likely to shoot you at all. Ever since the safety change the accidental deaths due to engaging can thieves has plummeted. It's not worth my time to go into mission pockets and dance around flagged waiting for them to shoot me so I can warp in my logi and break their stuff.

Wow. I never even considered the option for someone to accept a mission with the sole intention of killing mission invaders/griefers for sport.

This is yet another added bonus of the suspect flag suggestion.

Thank you for pointing it out

You missed the previous post where it is clearly stated that some players will be able to accept missions for the sole intention to counter-gank any mission invaders/grifers who show up.

This allows for proactive action rather than reactive. It could even be by the mission runner themselves. Alt account in a recon, locks you down as his mission ship warps out, comes back in a pvp ship. Obviously most mission runners are too risk adverse to do this but you would at least run the risk of annoying someone who uses missioning to make isk on the side for pvp, or as stated before, traps.

But a suspect flag makes it legal to kill the invader immediately, which they cannot do now.

DA PO-PO.

Technically you'd be right, there is nothing stopping me from web/scramming your ship with a recon, but I'd only have about 15 seconds to kill you before concord decides to get off their doughnut break and turn my recon into scrap.

So I guess my brain is stopping me, because being ******** is not high on my list of things to do (sometimes it happens!).

What would happen with agressive drones + suspect nearby? To me, that sounds like it would bridge the need to shoot the MTU first <.<

Repost but word it differently to appeal more to criminals.