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

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.

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.

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.

Same deal, people will accidentally flag suspect and get killed when they were legitimately helping a friend out. How you ask? they're in fleet so they wont flag? scenario: P2 joins P1's fleet and is in the mission with them, P2 has a disconnect and logs back in, now P2 gets to warp to P1's mission pocket possibly before they can rejoin fleet and goes suspect, it's an e-warp and cannot be cancelled.

If you aren't prepared to think outside the box at what negative or unexpected effects your suggestion will have and get tunnel vision thinking only of your specific problem you wish to solve you can't really expect people to support or agree with your idea.

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?

Teach us all. Tell us exactly what you are afraid of. Tell us all of the implications.

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.

You're afraid of this suggestion and that's obvious. To understand your fears, you need to open up to us and tell us what you are afraid of.

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.

Yes, ok, I get the opinion part of your comments: there are "implications" that I don't understand... the idea is "terrible"... there are "severe consequences".... but you really never say much more than that.

Spell it out. Make your case. State the facts.

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.

Well then. At least thank you for taking the time and effort to post all of your opinions in this thread. Your failure to support them causes some problems though.

This is a copy paste from the Sticky at the top of the forums titled "Features and Ideas Rules." You may want to read it.




The Features and Ideas forum is primarily for players to make suggestions or put forth ideas that they feel may improve EVE.

...

Along with this, the RULES are going to be enforced at a more vigorous level.

Please, read the forum rules, and pay attention to them. If you don't like someone's idea, please remember to post with respect towards fellow players at all times and remain constructive.

Thus a couple ground rules:
1) This is a breeding ground for ideas. If someone has an idea, listen to it. If you don't like it, think about why. Constructive feedback is good. Posting "That's an awful idea," is not constructive.

...

Edit: removed most of the items to help focus here. I think it's needed.

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.

Maybe you should read my response to post #124 as you obviously missed post #128

And you can just read my post #134 in reponse to your #133

It's not too late to actually present some facts.

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.

Yes I believe these were addressed in earlier responses.

Read.

Are you going to make me search the thread only to find out you're lying? Could you just reiterate the reasons for me briefly?

Maybe you should read my response to post #124 as you obviously missed post #128

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:

The suggestion is to add a simple flag to anyone warping to a mission pocket without a legal reason and without the pocket owners approval.

I know, right?

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

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.