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) |
CaldariCitizen1029109
State War Academy Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2014.01.23 07:27:00 -
[61] - Quote
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.. |
Riot Girl
You'll Cowards Don't Even Smoke Crack
2466
|
Posted - 2014.01.23 07:32:00 -
[62] - Quote
Abdul 'aleem wrote: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 understand that, I just think it's a bad idea. Oh god. |
Abdul 'aleem
Sumiko Yoshida Corporation
23
|
Posted - 2014.01.23 07:34:00 -
[63] - Quote
CaldariCitizen1029109 wrote: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..
Again, it's not a "is the missioner able to get the item" issue. It is an issue that, in there is little to no option for counter-play options for the mission runner.
Also, it is a game balance issue, where the risk/reward for one party, in this case the missioner, is extremely disproportionate to that of the other, in this case the mission thief.
I am only advocating even out that risk/reward gap and putting in a simple new criminal flag that is triggered by at the start of the criminal act not at the very end after it is completed.
|
Gigan Amilupar
No Code of Conduct Fluffeh Bunneh Murder Squad
146
|
Posted - 2014.01.23 07:36:00 -
[64] - Quote
Ok, I'm going to interject here and be the 5th individual person to leave a post in this already 3 page thread. 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. |
Abdul 'aleem
Sumiko Yoshida Corporation
23
|
Posted - 2014.01.23 07:37:00 -
[65] - Quote
Riot Girl wrote:Abdul 'aleem wrote: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 understand that, I just think it's a bad idea.
Why is it bad?
It is basically the same as any existing criminal flag and, honestly, the extra time flagged will may make the act a little more risky but ultimately much much more fulfilling to the criminal.
And, let's be real, the reward for success is pretty worth that added risk still.
|
Riot Girl
You'll Cowards Don't Even Smoke Crack
2466
|
Posted - 2014.01.23 07:40:00 -
[66] - Quote
Gigan Amilupar wrote: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. 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.
Oh god. |
Riot Girl
You'll Cowards Don't Even Smoke Crack
2466
|
Posted - 2014.01.23 07:43:00 -
[67] - Quote
Abdul 'aleem wrote:Why is it bad? 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.
Quote:let's be real, the reward for success is pretty worth that added risk still. That goes for all parties involved.
Oh god. |
Abdul 'aleem
Sumiko Yoshida Corporation
23
|
Posted - 2014.01.23 07:45:00 -
[68] - Quote
Riot Girl wrote:Gigan Amilupar wrote: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. 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.
I believe that Gigan Amilupar's post is quite on point. |
Riot Girl
You'll Cowards Don't Even Smoke Crack
2466
|
Posted - 2014.01.23 07:47:00 -
[69] - Quote
It doesn't explain why mission runners shouldn't be prepared to gank thieves to protect their property. Oh god. |
Hunter Arngrahm
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
1
|
Posted - 2014.01.23 07:50:00 -
[70] - Quote
You know, I think part of the issue here is that Pirates gets to hide behind CONCORD until they decide to stick their tongue out at the missioner and make a funny face before they warp out with the required mission item. There's a certain argument that "EVE isn't fair", but there is some semblance of balance that CCP tries to keep in EVE, otherwise you'd have everyone in Nullsec alliances flying GM ships and suicide ganking highsec missioners with doomsdays because they have essentially unlimited isk anyway.
The current way the Missioner/Pirate relationship works is heavily skewed in favor of the pirate, to the point where there's never any real hope the missioner has a chance. Hell, look at the killboards in a mission hub system, the proof is there: If a fight breaks out between a missioner and a pirate, chances are the pirate will win. This is because it's extremely hard to have a PVP fit work for PVE, and vice versa. Now, it's the missioner's choice if they want to engage the pirate, as the pirate can't attack them without it being a suicide gank... But that doesn't mean much if the pirate can't be attacked either because they aren't suspect yet. This leaves the pirate free to do as they wish in the mission, they don't even have aggro from the rats much of the time.
This isn't a problem anywhere but Highsec. In Nullsec, Lowsec, Wormholes, the missioner can deter the pirate the moment they warp in by opening fire. The playing field is level, with the missioner actually able to defend what he's worked for, and the pirate actually needs to put effort into his theft. Sure, there's still the PVE vs. PVP ship thing, but you'll have that either way. If you're ratting in Low/Null/WH with a PVE fit, you usually tend to avoid PVP anyway because, as stated, you probably don't stand as much of a chance. That's not the point.
The point is, CONCORD protects pirates and are, quite frankly, the main reason mission item thefts like this happen. Due to the way missions work and the nature of PVE, the missioner has everything to lose, and the pirate has everything to gain at zero risk to himself. The missioner can only stand idly by and watch as the pirate salvages wrecks while he waits for the mission item to drop. So what if he goes suspect when he grabs the mission loot? He's warped out by the time the missioner can do anything about it. Even if he hasn't? He's fit to kill the missioner, the missioner isn't fit to kill him. If the missioner fires he's doomed himself. Missioners don't commonly fit points, either, where Pirates almost always do, so the pirate can simply warp out anyway. Smart missioners know the only winning move is not to play, and simply warp out if a pirate warps in. If the pirate really wanted to, though, he could warp back, kill everything in a PVE ship, and run off with the quest item anyway.
Honestly, there should be some mechanic in place to deal with those entering missions other than the mission runner. Perhaps using an acceleration gate in someone's mission without being in their fleet would provide the missioner with a killright on the potential pirate, one that's only available for 25 minutes... Sort of like a suspect timer without being an actual suspect timer. Naturally a warning message should pop up when attempting to use the gate, maybe require safety be set to yellow. It gives the missioner the ability to defend themselves and their mission goods if possible, but doesn't guarantee that anyone warping in would be flagged for death for an accident or a mistake. It also gives the option for the missioner to return in a PVP ship to fight the pirate before they've actually stolen from them. Also allows for them to call in friends to do so for him, similarly to how the Pirate can call in logistics if he has connections.
The idea has its flaws, for example, I'm sure at least one person would be tricked into warping into someone's mission while not in fleet, awarding a killright, and getting ganked, but there's loopholes to everything. It seems like a sound idea, and honestly would open up far more PVP opportunities and emergent gameplay than the current system. Hell, as a good example, I had a suspect warp in on my mission several days ago claiming all my mission loot as his. Nothing I can do about this, as it's a level 4 mission and PVP buffer tanks, not to mention neuts, have no real use. Didn't care anyway because it was a rogue drone mission and I blitz. I said hi to him in local because he had an absurd CSPA fee, and two people messaged me in local wanting fleet invites to attack him. Long story short, I had 12 people in my mission, 6 of which were in Logistics ships, and I got to watch them flail about at each other until everyone got bored and the fight broke up because logistics makes everyone hard as hell to kill. If you could have an open killright on a potential pirate for anyone to take, it would present a lot more situations like that. It would make counter-piracy far more possible than it currently is, too.
Quote:It doesn't explain why mission runners shouldn't be prepared to gank thieves to protect their property.
Because they may not even have the opportunity because CONCORD silently looms over their shoulder. |
|
Basil Pupkin
Why So Platypus
25
|
Posted - 2014.01.23 07:50:00 -
[71] - Quote
Lock the gate with a mission key, give mission key to the mission runner, take it back after mission completion. Mission key applies to only one mission and keeps the gate open for 1 minute, it is not consumed on usage.
Now nobody enters without your permission, unless he's fast enough, in which case he has skill and right to loot. |
Abdul 'aleem
Sumiko Yoshida Corporation
23
|
Posted - 2014.01.23 07:52:00 -
[72] - Quote
Riot Girl wrote:Abdul 'aleem wrote:Why is it bad? 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. Quote:let's be real, the reward for success is pretty worth that added risk still. That goes for all parties involved.
You have to be honest about what it actually takes to perpetrate this criminal act currently. And that is not a lot, as I mentioned in the initial post.
It's not changing any core mechanics, it's only changing the timeline of the criminal flag from a point at which the missioner has little to no options to counter, to a place more accurately reflecting the initiation of the criminal act and which allows for more copunter-play options on the part of all other parties.
And yes. This is not a suggestion to give the missioner a free ride. 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. |
Erotica 1
Krypteia Operations CODE.
3287
|
Posted - 2014.01.23 07:54:00 -
[73] - Quote
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. See Bio for isk doubling rules. If you didn't read bio, chances are you funded those who did. |
Gigan Amilupar
No Code of Conduct Fluffeh Bunneh Murder Squad
146
|
Posted - 2014.01.23 07:55:00 -
[74] - Quote
Basil Pupkin wrote:Lock the gate with a mission key, give mission key to the mission runner, take it back after mission completion. Mission key applies to only one mission and keeps the gate open for 1 minute, it is not consumed on usage.
Now nobody enters without your permission, unless he's fast enough, in which case he has skill and right to loot.
That is a far more sandbox-breaking mechanic then simply assigning a suspect timer and allowing player driven interaction from there on. |
Riot Girl
You'll Cowards Don't Even Smoke Crack
2466
|
Posted - 2014.01.23 07:56:00 -
[75] - Quote
Hunter Arngrahm wrote:Because they may not even have the opportunity because CONCORD silently looms over their shoulder. CONCORD are killing suicide gankers before they gank now?
Oh god. |
Basil Pupkin
Why So Platypus
25
|
Posted - 2014.01.23 07:58:00 -
[76] - Quote
Gigan Amilupar wrote:Basil Pupkin wrote:Lock the gate with a mission key, give mission key to the mission runner, take it back after mission completion. Mission key applies to only one mission and keeps the gate open for 1 minute, it is not consumed on usage.
Now nobody enters without your permission, unless he's fast enough, in which case he has skill and right to loot. That is a far more sandbox-breaking mechanic then simply assigning a suspect timer and allowing player driven interaction from there on.
Giving the mission area entry rights only to the person appointed to do so doesn't make enough sense to you? From an agent's perspective, it should. |
Hunter Arngrahm
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
1
|
Posted - 2014.01.23 07:58:00 -
[77] - Quote
This seems like a really good idea for factional warfare. Maybe not for regular missions, but faction warfare that's be brilliant. |
Abdul 'aleem
Sumiko Yoshida Corporation
23
|
Posted - 2014.01.23 07:59:00 -
[78] - Quote
I will read this. But I definitely like where it seems to be headed. |
Riot Girl
You'll Cowards Don't Even Smoke Crack
2471
|
Posted - 2014.01.23 08:01:00 -
[79] - Quote
Abdul 'aleem wrote:It's not changing any core mechanics Let's not lie to ourselves.
Quote:the missioner has little to no options to counter I've mentioned several options already, none of which have yet been disputed (other than 'I can't suicide gank because it hurts my isk/hour')
Quote:counter-play options 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.
Quote:But, if it is ok that the missioner assume a level of risk proportionate to the reward He doesn't though. He assumes there should be no risk and he should be free from the influence of other players.
Quote:it is also ok for the mission thief/griefer to assume a an amount of risk proportionate to their own potential reward.
They do. Oh god. |
Hunter Arngrahm
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
1
|
Posted - 2014.01.23 08:01:00 -
[80] - Quote
Riot Girl wrote:Hunter Arngrahm wrote:Because they may not even have the opportunity because CONCORD silently looms over their shoulder. CONCORD are killing suicide gankers before they gank now?
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. |
|
Abdul 'aleem
Sumiko Yoshida Corporation
23
|
Posted - 2014.01.23 08:01:00 -
[81] - Quote
Gigan Amilupar wrote:Basil Pupkin wrote:Lock the gate with a mission key, give mission key to the mission runner, take it back after mission completion. Mission key applies to only one mission and keeps the gate open for 1 minute, it is not consumed on usage.
Now nobody enters without your permission, unless he's fast enough, in which case he has skill and right to loot. That is a far more sandbox-breaking mechanic then simply assigning a suspect timer and allowing player driven interaction from there on.
Yep I agree.
The intention was never to remove the possibility of mission theft. Just balance out options and the whole risk/reward equation on both sides. |
Riot Girl
You'll Cowards Don't Even Smoke Crack
2471
|
Posted - 2014.01.23 08:05:00 -
[82] - Quote
Hunter Arngrahm wrote: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. That's not how you do it, and yes, it is both plausible and financially viable.
Oh god. |
Basil Pupkin
Why So Platypus
25
|
Posted - 2014.01.23 08:05:00 -
[83] - Quote
Riot Girl wrote:Hunter Arngrahm wrote:Because they may not even have the opportunity because CONCORD silently looms over their shoulder. CONCORD are killing suicide gankers before they gank now?
CONCORD doesn't let us kill suicide gankers before they gank, that's what he meant. |
Abdul 'aleem
Sumiko Yoshida Corporation
23
|
Posted - 2014.01.23 08:05:00 -
[84] - Quote
Riot Girl wrote:Abdul 'aleem wrote:It's not changing any core mechanics Let's not lie to ourselves. ... Quote:counter-play options 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. Quote:But, if it is ok that the missioner assume a level of risk proportionate to the reward He doesn't though. He assumes there should be no risk and he should be free from the influence of other players. Quote:it is also ok for the mission thief/griefer to assume a an amount of risk proportionate to their own potential reward.
They do.
State your case and spell it out for us. What are the mechanics that you feel are so drastically threatened?
And, no they really don't as illustrated in the initial post. |
Hunter Arngrahm
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
1
|
Posted - 2014.01.23 08:11:00 -
[85] - Quote
Riot Girl wrote: That's not how you do it, and yes, it is both plausible and financially viable.
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. |
Riot Girl
You'll Cowards Don't Even Smoke Crack
2472
|
Posted - 2014.01.23 08:12:00 -
[86] - Quote
Basil Pupkin wrote:Riot Girl wrote:Hunter Arngrahm wrote:Because they may not even have the opportunity because CONCORD silently looms over their shoulder. CONCORD are killing suicide gankers before they gank now? CONCORD doesn't let us kill suicide gankers before they gank, that's what he meant. You're supposed to be the ganker...
Oh god. |
Mallak Azaria
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
4414
|
Posted - 2014.01.23 08:13:00 -
[87] - Quote
Wait until he starts talking about how criminal acts are isk faucets. This user won the forums on 18/09/2013, then lost on 18/12/2013. |
Riot Girl
You'll Cowards Don't Even Smoke Crack
2472
|
Posted - 2014.01.23 08:14:00 -
[88] - Quote
Hunter Arngrahm wrote: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.
How much does the mission item cost? The other thread linked says 500m. How many Tornadoes can you buy with 500m? I estimate about 6. More than enough to perform a gank. There, financial viability. Oh god. |
Abdul 'aleem
Sumiko Yoshida Corporation
23
|
Posted - 2014.01.23 08:14:00 -
[89] - Quote
Riot Girl wrote:Hunter Arngrahm wrote: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. That's not how you do it, and yes, it is both plausible and financially viable.
Plausibale doesn't equal practical. It sometimes does not even mean possible. |
Riot Girl
You'll Cowards Don't Even Smoke Crack
2472
|
Posted - 2014.01.23 08:15:00 -
[90] - Quote
Abdul 'aleem wrote:What are the mechanics that you feel are so drastically threatened? The HTFU mechanic.
Quote:And, no they really don't as illustrated in the initial post. I'm pretty sure they're aware they're going to be criminally flagged before they steal the item.
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 |