Edit: you came into the thread a little late, so you may have missed it. But that's no excuse to be lazy.

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

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

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.

It can be traded between players.

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

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)

With enough Talos, it kind of is. Looting the wreck is maybe the hardest part.

The thief is taking more risks and receiving a lower reward. What you are suggesting is that they should have to take greater risks, while you should not.

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.

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.

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.

I believe that would be one possible solution to the content lock out threat, and that you are probably right that no one would contest it.

It is does not offer the best counter-play option though, imo.

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.

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

As spelled out in several earlier posts, this is creating a situation in which legitimate counter-play options do not exist for the missioner.

And, even if the thief chooses to PvP bait, which is often the only time a missioner even has chance at some sort of counter, doing so has a significant chance of destroying the item as a result.

This results in the risk being significantly and disproportionately higher to the missioner than to that of the thief. ie the whole risk/reward equation and game balance is off.

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.

I also agree with that observation about mission runners in general, specifically in hisec.

My personal preference is play and counter-play options create a much more rewarding atmosphere, in this specific case for both parties.

I made a semi-flippant comment about the current low risk/high reward that currently exists for the mission thief depriving them of getting the full EVE experience, but I was more than half serious.

I sincerely feel that the whole interaction would be much more satisfying to both parties if a warp in flag were introduced.

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.

I can find nothing in that information that supports your claims.

#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.