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'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.

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.

I would argue that the reason that no other player in the game can access the mission pocket if the owner doesn't undock after pulling the mission is that the missioner is in the "state of ownership" and can exercise that power of ownership to keep the location to themselves.

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?

1) The would be thief is not a valid target in almost all situations until after they have successfully looted the mission item

2) If the thief aligns, loots and warps, the missioner can be deprived of the possibility to engage

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.

...the missioner owns the mission pocket.

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!

3) saying it is "extreme" may be a little extreme, but I get your points. Salvagers being flagged was identified as a consequence several times and I don't think anyone has disagreed. I think that the salvagers flag is not a big issue. No other playstyles have been identified as being effected. If you know some specific ones, post them.

I believe that a suspect flag for trespassing would not have that much impact on salvagers. But, it is up to CCP whether they want to make/keep salvagers a protected class or not.

If you have scanned a missioner's pocket and chosen to warp to them without a valid legal reason, you have started that criminal act.

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?

1) valid and currently being discussed in thread

2) they would simply need to get permission from the owner to legally enter the mission space (ie "can I get a fleet invite?")

3) same as number 2

So, would they really be "brutally altered" because they have to contact the owner of the pocket before entering 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.

Quotes are usually used when referring to something that someone else said or posted. And I never said or posted what you are quoting.

The intentions of this change are listed in the original post.

Summary:

1) Balance out the risk/reward to both the missioner and the mission thief

2) add opportunities for counter-play that do not exist currently

If the theft can still be completed after this change is made (and it can), what are all you gankers/griefers/"pirates" and mission thieves crying about?

I know it is scary when you can no longer exploit a broken game mechanic, but I think you all can handle it.

I mean, you're "pirates," right? Do you really want Concord to continue protecting you after invading a missioner's mission site? That's just not... "piratey."

Be the criminal that you always wanted to be... embrace the suspect flag for trespassing and illegal mission invasion... open yourself up to a little counter-play and PvP....

It's really not going to be that bad.

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.

This is not true. The missioner and anyone else still retain the option not to attack.

My suggestion only opens the invader up to that risk.

Edit:

Yes my suggestion is not a 100% fix to all the problems, specifically the risk of getting locked out of content because of another players actions.

But a suspect flag for trespassing will help balance out the risk/reward equation and offer legitimate counter-play options that do not currently exist.

That is the intent.

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.