While I get what you are trying to do, you are starting at the wrong point.

The issue actually comes from the COSMOS missions themselves, their crazy rewards, and their single time only static nature which is an artefact from right back at the start of EVE.
If the missions were repeatable or reset, then this would not be an issue.

Or even better, if they were randomly generated and not always in a single static location and not always the same objective.

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.

or jsut go buy the mission item from market/contracts? Don't like the standings drop its gets you the completion.

For some missions you will find you get more than enough items to stock up yourself as well for later use. For missions like these and if I am in full bore blitz mode its pop triggers asap, get the checkmark in the box for deadspace complete and turn in the extras at station already as my blitzes are no looting run and guns.


Think its the blood raider militants one, that got me armies of them. I used to take some of the extras and carry them in pvp ships. Figure whoever got the wreck might get a laugh out of picking up militants along with my real loot.

eve doesn't do instances. Closest you get is ship restrictions on gates or say skill restrictions for some 0.0 ca's (warp drive op 5 iirc for a few). No warp drive op 5, not getting in.

Also you could jsut pop the mission item carrying trigger after you close and kill them to snatch it before they do.

This can be fun in say damsel. I know from drunken dual boxing frigates like bombers go boom with the pleasure gardens aoe. I used to run a bomber dual boxed with say a rattler meat shield for aggro beatings, drunk flew it too close to the garden, popped it and -1 bomber, doh.


edit: granted cosmos be a bit difficult but this half instancing would apply to normal missions as well, which be a problem. tbh shocked people run cosmos still. has payout gotten better than the mod bp's no one really uses the items for?

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.

It doesn't need to be rebalanced. You already know thieves are a risk in this mission, so make preparations for that. Now it is balanced.

missioner would suffer further cost/risk

The invader has as much right to the loot as you do. If he gets the loot, then you have failed and that is because you are bad, not because the mechanics make it easier for him.

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.

So basically your argument is that someone has spent months developing and refining a profitable playstyle and they're better at the game than you so they need to be nerfed.

This is a problem. They should stop resetting the mission.

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.

Why should he get a criminal flag when he hasn't committed a crime? Why should mission runners be allowed to bypass core mechanics that the rest of us are forced to abide by?

The invader has as much right to the loot as you do. If he gets the loot, then you have failed and that is because you are bad, not because the mechanics make it easier for him.

The item is available on the market. The only consequence is higher costs for players who lack initiative. There is nothing unfair about that.

No this is not a true statement.

The item is not always on the market, for various reasons.

And, again, this is not the issue.

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

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.

They're not trespassing. They're in NPC space.

The mission pocket is a private space

It is trespassing.

Buy it from the thief.


Tornadoes. If a thief can warp in and loot, why can't you just do the same? Why can't you do it with a cloak so you can't be scanned down? I don't know how the mission works, but I'm pretty sure there are plenty of ways to deal with this situation if you use your imagination.

This has also been covered in the Mission & Complexes thread.

The mission pocket is a private space created and assigned to a specific player as a result of their individual interaction with a mission agent

The lack of a beacon or a pre-existing structure is a sign of this

The fact that no one can see the location in their overview is a further sign of this

In fact the only way to access the site is to scan the owner's or another authorized player's ship in the pocket and warp to them which is a third sign that it is not a public space.

It is trespassing and it should trigger an appropriate criminal flag when the decision is made to trespass.

The mission pocket is a private space created and assigned to a specific player as a result of their individual interaction with a mission agent

The lack of a beacon or a pre-existing structure is a sign of this

The fact that no one can see the location in their overview is a further sign of this

In fact the only way to access the site is to scan the owner's or another authorized player's ship in the pocket and warp to them which is a third sign that it is not a public space.

It is trespassing and it should trigger an appropriate criminal flag when the decision is made to trespass.

No it isn't. It's in empire space.


Same answer.

Yes it is?

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

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.

What system is this in again? It matters.

Access to the mission pocket is never restricted to anyone in this suggestion. It only makes the initiation of the theft a criminal act, and that starts with intent at the time of the warp in..

I doubt they are. Nothing would change because mission runners would still whine about not being able to fight in their PvE ships, then they'll complain and beg for more detrimental changes.

I'm pretty sure the space is always there, it's just the mission objects which are created. However, they are not created especially for you. You do not have ownership of that space, it belongs to an empire faction.

How do you think that they are created?

They'd just come and gank you seeing as you are also flagged as a criminal for trespassing.

It's the Love Lost COSMOS mission.

how is it a criminal act right off the bat? there is no act committed yet. Hope you don't work in law enforcement.



The player could be testing out probing skills. Innocent as lets find ship, then warp to it. Not all have dual boxed alts to test this on.

TBH I have had this issue with paranoid asshats in 0.0.

WTF, why are you probing me?
Ummm....because I suck at probing ships and I am practicing. Chill, intel is clean and its dead for action now anyway.


Worried that much about it, run hard to find setups. I have a hard to find tengu. Above would not apply to me. As I know nooby noob did not jsut buy virtues (only way to find me) to give em a go day 1 of learning how to probe. If he comes in uncloaked I am actually happy he is there to flip cans. The more likely option he is a cloaked warp in for a gank squad seeing what shinies the tengu will drop.

I think that you may not understand the original post.

I understand that you want rules to apply to everyone else except you.

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.

The server triggers the spawn, probably when the mission is accepted.

You want other players to be flagged as criminals for engaging in the same activities as you are.

How is the mission accepted?

Is it a public action?

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

The problem here is that Riot Girl and I are using common sense, and you are looking around for an artificial rulebook, like we played some sort of ******* dragon card out of turn when you were due for it- or however you nerds play those stupid games. This is Eve.

I'll ask again, in what system, in what kind of space is this mission in? Nullsec? Lowsec? Highsec? This is a simple question. Do not make it hard.

No. So what?

So tell me how is the spawning of the mission site triggered?

I believe that your personal attacks may be in violation of the rules of this forum.

No. It's irrelevant. Just because you requested the server spawn a mission site, that doesn't mean you are allowed to claim ownership of it. Well actually, you are allowed to but you need the balls to enforce it, which is something you are incapable of.

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

It is not a personal attack. It is an attack against a broad group of people whom I dislike. And I said nerd. Does that scare you?Get real. Again, you are searching around for some rulebook. Use common sense man. Let's pretend you and your pirate are actually characters on Star Trek. Who do you think is going to play the random red shirt that we never see again? I think everyone reading this knows the answer.

Since I was refreshing and seeing more comments, I do want to apologize for one thing I missed. Obviously we are talking about high sec.

Did you ask James 315 permission first to mission in his system? Did you buy a permit, and are you playing according to the Code?

*edit* You have 5 seconds remaining to respond. Are you afk?

It is actually quite relevant.

The fact that the site is generated as a result of a private action and as a means to complete a mission objective assigned to the person who initiated the spawning of that pocket does lead to the conclusion that the pocket can be considered to be the "property" of the person who it was spawned for.

If you need further proof, tell me how, if the owner of the pocket doesn't give away the location, anyone else can warp to it.

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

WELL GUESS WHAT? THEY CAN!

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?

Fine, they need the mission runner to be there. That still doesn't explain why the mission runner should be given their own pocket of space in empire.

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 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..

I understand that, I just think it's a bad idea.

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.

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.

It doesn't explain why mission runners shouldn't be prepared to gank thieves to protect their property.

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.


That goes for all parties involved.

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.

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

That is a far more sandbox-breaking mechanic then simply assigning a suspect timer and allowing player driven interaction from there on.

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.

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.

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.

CONCORD are killing suicide gankers before they gank now?

That is a far more sandbox-breaking mechanic then simply assigning a suspect timer and allowing player driven interaction from there on.

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 are killing suicide gankers before they gank now?

Let's not lie to ourselves.

...


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.


He doesn't though. He assumes there should be no risk and he should be free from the influence of other players.

They do.

That's not how you do it, and yes, it is both plausible and financially viable.

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.

That's not how you do it, and yes, it is both plausible and financially viable.

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.

The HTFU mechanic.


I'm pretty sure they're aware they're going to be criminally flagged before they steal the item.

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

Plausibale doesn't equal practical.

Everything in Eve is impractical. It's kinda what separates the wheat from the chaff, so to speak.

Why not just stay on topic and answer what mechanics you think are so desperately threatened by this idea?

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.

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.

The primary problem with missions is that they are repetitive. Pick any mission and there is a guide out there for how to get past exactly what you encounter. The very fact that a missioner can mention a mission name and have every other mission runner know exactly what the mission is- that is a problem for a sandbox game. For those mission runners who want single player, well maybe CCP should make a single player version and get them out of the sandbox. Or just go buy an old classic like Privateer.

Missions need to be (somehow) more varied and feel like you are getting a mission that no one else has done, just like exploring needs to be dynamic, and like actually find new space.

One idea I have proposed in the past is to have CCP create a sort of storyline that engages a large number of the community at once. One of the examples I used is ice. Have all of the ice of a particular variety disappear (maybe some sort of cloak by pirates, whatever). Sure, miners would be upset. But they would have the opportunity to help get it back, along with missioners and anyone else, by completing unique one time missions that require a lot of involvement from many players.

I think a regular series of this sorg of cooperative mission would be healthy for the community as a whole, though my preference would be that other players could help the opposing side.

Hell, reduce the staggering standing loss on mission failure and give me a chance to FAIL missions without the intervention of someone trying to make the boring grind even harder on me by interrupting it. They aren't adding any gameplay, they're just being annoying.

For clarification, my point is that I resent having to explain things you should be able to figure out on your own.

Player interaction: Annoying.

And my point was you're just wasting people's time. Which you've proven. If you had any real argument or contribution you'd be providing it, and you aren't.

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.

That mechanic was put in place by CCP when they created the missioning system.

I will grant you this: it is also intended for people to be able to invade that private space.

I am not trying to in any way change that.

The only thing that I am advocating is that the criminal flag be triggered when the actual criminal act is started, which in the case of mission item theft/griefing is when the decision is made to warp into and invade the private mission pocket generated for the mission runner.

This suggestion takes absolutely nothing away from the ability to trespass or steal a mission item, and it isn't intended to.

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'm not against ideas that create more PvP and more interaction (although I feel this idea is unlikely to do either). What I am against is carebears whining for mechanics to be changed to suit them because they're unwilling to make an effort when all the tools they need are provided for them. Forcing a criminal flag, as an idea on its own, has merit but it comes with a cost which affects everyone, not just you. There is no problem with the current mechanics. The problem is you.

I'm not against ideas that create more PvP and more interaction (although I feel this idea is unlikely to do either). What I am against is carebears whining for mechanics to be changed to suit them because they're unwilling to make an effort when all the tools they need are provided for them. Forcing a criminal flag, as an idea on its own, has merit but it comes with a cost which affects everyone, not just you. There is no problem with the current mechanics. The problem is you.

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

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.

Well there's this one rule in high-sec about when it's okay to shoot someone. It's kind of a big deal.

And, yet, we still are waiting to hear all of the mechanics that are threatened by this proposed change of adding one trigger.

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

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.

Riot Girl is kind of leading you on.

That said, she does have a point. Your trigger is far too broad and kind of makes it rough on a lot of occupations. Ninja salvagers, for example, while annoying, do wander through and salvage things because salvaging doesn't flag you as a suspect. It's a fairly "safe" way for exploration minded newbies to make isk early on, even if it is at another mission runner's expense. Keep in mind they only salvage, they don't steal loot items. If they went suspect for simply warping in, it would ruin their entire method of operation and offer less incentive to learn these skills.

And on that note, I've had days where I've been bored and scanned down someone's mission and just started salvaging for them, then dropped the can and abandoned it in front of them. Under your idea I've had gone suspect for my assistance and they could have shot me under the assumption I was stealing from them.

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.

trying to protect their extortion racket.

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.

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.

lol that's pretty funny.

Generally, the onus is on the person making the claim to substantiate it, not the person that they are talking to.

DR:TL

Take the time to prove your own claims don't make others do it for you.

i'll agree that mission runners can shoot people who warp into their missions on the assumption that if you warp into someones mission you're permitted to shoot them too. After all you're asking to be able to commit violence against someones ship it's only fair if they can do it to you too.

Just think of it like making all mission pockets into 0.0 space and concord have decided that deadspace pockets are too difficult to patrol so have decided to let pod pilots patrol them.

p.s. also people who warp into faction warfare sites should be marked up the same way i'm sick of having to lose sec status because some carebear wants to come play with us

ROFL, you wouldn't read it anyway.

also you seem lost... this is your thread, it's actually your job to prove to us why your change would benefit everyone.


Note: At the point of this post your idea has exactly.... 0 likes, that really speaks for itself

(We'll now assume any it gets shortly after are your alts)

Really? He provided a link to content which substantiated his claims.

This suggestion is just adding a flag for the trespasser at the time that they choose to start warping to the mission pocket.

The criminal system mechanics would remain the same.

If I steal from your can, I can shoot you. Then you can shoot me.

The same would apply for a flag at warp in: the missioner has the immediate opportunity to shoot, if they do you can legally shoot back.

Also the same warning system and exemptions to flagging would apply.

Forum rules sticky... the very top one:

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=6341&find=unread

for you:

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.



Are you really saying anything more than "That's an awful idea"?

5. Trolling is prohibited.

Trolling is a defined as a post that is deliberately designed for the purpose of angering and insulting other players in an attempt to incite retaliation or an emotional response. Posts of this nature are disruptive, often abusive and do not contribute to the sense of community that CCP promote.

Yeah I disagree.

Several people have explained quite clearly and politely what their objections are and why. Maybe read and acknowledge these instead of simply disregarding them in a provocative manner?

You even later admitted you didn't actually look at the content I linked to, after first posting that it contained nothing that backed my claims, implying you had.

Why not just make the thief suspect when they actually begin the crime?

PvP is good. Counter-play is good.

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

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.