These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Add a Suspect Flag for Mission Invasion

First post
Author
Abla Tive
#501 - 2014-01-29 06:44:23 UTC
I agree that the mission itself should be redesigned.

Failing that, yes, flagging people not in the fleet that generated the room with a suspect flag makes sense.

It brings forward in time the opportunity for PvP
Gislin D'ahl
Perkone
Caldari State
#502 - 2014-01-29 08:43:13 UTC  |  Edited by: Gislin D'ahl
I read the original post and I read every single reply in the thread.

I started out being in support in a general sort of way...by that I mean I didn't see anything inherently wrong with it. However, I saw a couple suggestions that fixed the problem without implementing the suspect flag, and I saw a mistaken opinion (not "fact" or "proof", "opinion") about the meaning of ownership, space, and trespassing. Then, I read discussions about flagging ninja salvagers and possibly turning mission pockets into pvp zones and I decided I don't like the suggestion.

To repeat, yes, I read the entire thread. YES, I understood the points made, on both sides. My response:

The initial issue is COSMOS missions being broken by gankers. The primary point of the original post is the weight attached to COSMOS missions. They're unique, they can only be done once, they have exceptionally high rewards, they're incredibly fragile.

The suggested response affects ALL missions in the game with pockets. This would therefore include mining missions, security missions, and storyline missions that include either mining or combat. However, Mining Missions, Security Missions, and Storyline Missions are not as fragile as COSMOS missions. Their time frame is longer (Most last 1 week with a few rare exceptions), the standings hit for a failure is much smaller, and there is no action or inaction that can prevent you from having access to them in the future.

If COSMOS missions are broken in some way, a fix should be provided that only affects COSMOS missions. Regular pocket missions aren't broken, so they shouldn't be subjected to the unintended consequences of a change to COSMOS missions.

I rarely if ever ninja salvage. Sometimes I salvage yellow rat wrecks in asteroid belts on my alts (I'm not allowed to on this character). But I definitely want to encourage salvagers to do their thing (and to feel as safe as possible in Eve's unsafe universe). Without their salvage, I can't manufacture rigs.

I don't gank anyone. But, I understand gankers want to play the game and have fun too. I don't think the solution to dealing with gankers is to limit their ability to gank. I think the solution to gankers is for me to build a better mission/mining ship. That means skilling properly and fitting my security mission ships with an omni-tank instead of a rat specific tank or fitting ANY tank at all on a mining ship (as a proactive defense against unintended PVP) . I also have multiple mission/mining bases. If a pesky ganker is messing with me, I can clone jump into a completely different empire and pick my play back up there. The solution to gankers messing with missioners is not to target anyone uninvited who shows up in mission space. The solution is for missioners to figure out how to protect themselves to the limit of their ability/resources.

I can see making an exception for COSMOS missions because the risk is too high for the missioner and too low for the ganker. But in regular missions the 'cost' of being ganked is simply a part of doing business and playing the game.

tl;dr This suggestion would have negative unintended consequences. A more constructive solution would be to seed COSMOS mission sites through several different locations, as well as allowing uncompleted missions to reset during downtime. Whatever the solution, it should only apply to COSMOS missions as they're the only ones that are vulnerable.
Abdul 'aleem
Sumiko Yoshida Corporation
#503 - 2014-01-29 08:49:14 UTC  |  Edited by: Abdul 'aleem
Gislin D'ahl wrote:


tl;dr This suggestion would have negative unintended consequences. A more constructive solution would be to seed COSMOS mission sites through several different locations, as well as allowing uncompleted missions to reset during downtime.



If you can give the basis for your opinion that there would be "negative unintended consequences" we can definitely discuss anything that hasn't already been countered.

Also, no one has proven the false claim that all mission sites by default would turn into "PvP zones" or "combat arenas." In fact, many people have posted why this assumption is false. Maybe if you could also post the basis for your opinion here, we can discuss that too, if it hasn't already been addressed.

The impact to salvagers has been addressed and many people agree that all a salvager would need to do is fleet the mission owner to legally enter the mission pocket and salvage, which is really not that much of a change.

And yes it is possible that in addition to this suggested suspect flag for mission invasion, more improvements can be made. The combination of a suspect flag for mission invasion and more randomized mission locations was agreed to be a powerful game balancing combination.

Neither prevents missioners from being locked out of content by another player's actions. So in the future this will also need to be addressed.

There have been a lot of attempts by griefers to spread lies and misinformation about the "consequences" of a suspect flag, so I don't blame you at all for being confused. If you re-read the posts by everyone countering those false claims, I am sure that any confusion will be cleared up.

But, you will need to wade through all of the griefer lies and deception. I apologize for that.

They couldn't offer any valid reasons why this suggestion shouldn't be implemented, so they decided to make the thread 29 pages long assuming that people wouldn't read it then. I hope that they are wrong about that too. Big smile

Edit:

The title of the thread has been changed to "Add A Suspect Flag for Mission Invasion" to reflect that it will in fact benefit all missioners not just those at high risk of unique mission item theft.

The ability for everyone and their allies to legally counter-gank mission invaders... yes please. Add a Suspect Flag for Mission Invasion

Click "like" in the original post to support it.

Corraidhin Farsaidh
Singularity Expedition Services
Singularity Syndicate
#504 - 2014-01-29 11:10:08 UTC
The original post was regarding the theft of very specific loot items for ransom that could wreck a players COSMOS mission line. I was originally for a change in the mission itself to make the loot item secure given the unique nature of the mission line and the item itself.

I have to give a -1 (probably with a multiplier :D ) to the idea of making players suspect for jumping to a mission site. What if I'm scanning for my lost drones and jump to yours by mistake? Am I suspect simply for warping to a freely accessible area of space? What about when I scan down a combat anomaly only to discover somebody got there before me, do I go suspect then?

Any player in any area of space is free to travel wherever they like. When (and only when) they commit a criminal act they should be tagged as such. Other than that we should be free to travel wherever we choose.

Abdul 'aleem
Sumiko Yoshida Corporation
#505 - 2014-01-29 11:13:42 UTC  |  Edited by: Abdul 'aleem
Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote:
The original post was regarding the theft of very specific loot items for ransom that could wreck a players COSMOS mission line. I was originally for a change in the mission itself to make the loot item secure given the unique nature of the mission line and the item itself.

I have to give a -1 (probably with a multiplier :D ) to the idea of making players suspect for jumping to a mission site. What if I'm scanning for my lost drones and jump to yours by mistake? Am I suspect simply for warping to a freely accessible area of space? What about when I scan down a combat anomaly only to discover somebody got there before me, do I go suspect then?

Any player in any area of space is free to travel wherever they like. When (and only when) they commit a criminal act they should be tagged as such. Other than that we should be free to travel wherever we choose.




As has been discussed, the current warning system would be in full effect prior to any flag being applied and protecting the innocent.

The fact that the game currently treats the mission space as being for all intents and purposes "owned" by the missioner has been proven. It is not "freely accessible" and the notion of a mission site being intended as "public" has been proven false. Everyone has agreed that the mission owner can deprive others of entering their mission pocket if they choose to and that the missioner is the only one who can exercise the "right of ownership" to destroy it.

The basis for labeling the deliberate act of scanning down and warping into a mission pocket without permission as a "suspicious act" has been stated and supported by many.

The suggested suspect flag for the deliberate act of mission invasion in no way prevents anyone from entering the missioner's mission site. People are still "free to travel wherever (they) choose." It just correctly treats the choice to invade a missioner's mission pocket as a "suspicious act."

And, yes, the name of the original thread was "Unique Mission Item Theft Rebalance" and it has been changed to "Add a Suspect Flag for Mission Invasion" to reflect the unintended benefits to all missioners. The original post was left the same as it was before the thread name change. And the suggested action has not changed.

The ability for everyone and their allies to legally counter-gank mission invaders... yes please. Add a Suspect Flag for Mission Invasion

Click "like" in the original post to support it.

Samuel Wess
Doomheim
#506 - 2014-01-29 11:15:19 UTC
Why not move all this item theft missions in low sec ?

Walk into the club like "What up? I got a big cockpit!"

Abdul 'aleem
Sumiko Yoshida Corporation
#507 - 2014-01-29 11:29:40 UTC  |  Edited by: Abdul 'aleem
Samuel Wess wrote:
Why not move all this item theft missions in low sec ?



Definitely one possibility.

However, this thread was made to discuss the suggestion to add a suspect flag for mission invasion, so it is off topic.

The ability for everyone and their allies to legally counter-gank mission invaders... yes please. Add a Suspect Flag for Mission Invasion

Click "like" in the original post to support it.

Lloyd Roses
Artificial Memories
#508 - 2014-01-29 11:42:07 UTC
What would happen with agressive drones + suspect nearby? To me, that sounds like it would bridge the need to shoot the MTU first <.<
Abdul 'aleem
Sumiko Yoshida Corporation
#509 - 2014-01-29 11:44:44 UTC
Lloyd Roses wrote:
What would happen with agressive drones + suspect nearby? To me, that sounds like it would bridge the need to shoot the MTU first <.<



Please explain your opinion and the factual basis for it, so that everyone can understand it and discuss.

The ability for everyone and their allies to legally counter-gank mission invaders... yes please. Add a Suspect Flag for Mission Invasion

Click "like" in the original post to support it.

Riot Girl
You'll Cowards Don't Even Smoke Crack
#510 - 2014-01-29 11:46:34 UTC
Lloyd Roses wrote:
What would happen with agressive drones + suspect nearby? To me, that sounds like it would bridge the need to shoot the MTU first <.<

That's been nerfed now.
dexington
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#511 - 2014-01-29 11:50:50 UTC  |  Edited by: dexington
Abdul 'aleem wrote:
As has been discussed, the current warning system would be in full effect prior to any flag being applied and protecting the innocent.


How exactly would this warning help people getting fleet warped?, and what will happen to people who get disconnected and have dropped fleet when reconnecting?

I'm a relatively respectable citizen. Multiple felon perhaps, but certainly not dangerous.

Abdul 'aleem
Sumiko Yoshida Corporation
#512 - 2014-01-29 11:52:46 UTC  |  Edited by: Abdul 'aleem
dexington wrote:
Abdul 'aleem wrote:
As has been discussed, the current warning system would be in full effect prior to any flag being applied and protecting the innocent.


How exactly would this warning help people getting fleet warped?, and what will happen to people who get disconnected and have dropped fleet when reconnecting?



Those situations have been addressed in earlier posts. You will have to do a little digging to find them due to the thread crapping, though.

If you have a specific concern that has not already been addressed, just post the concern and the factual basis for it and we can discuss.

The ability for everyone and their allies to legally counter-gank mission invaders... yes please. Add a Suspect Flag for Mission Invasion

Click "like" in the original post to support it.

Lawson Finch
Doomheim
#513 - 2014-01-29 12:10:31 UTC
This is great!

It will deter salvagers and thieves from going in solo and encourages team-play.
Team-play is good for the game!
So, I get myself a gang of ruffians and go crash some poor sop's mission. Me and my gang all get suspect flagged.

One of the following things happen:

* The mission-runner sees several suspect-flagged ships in his mission, wets his knickers and warps out.
All his wrecks, loot, remaining NPC and mission objectives are ours! Victory!

* The mission-runner sees several suspect-flagged ships in his mission and shoots. Our gang, having RR, overwhelms the mission-runner and explodes him! His wreck and modules, NPC wrecks, loot, remaining NPC and mission objectives are ours! Victory!

* The missioner hollers in Local for help and invites a couple of white-knights. My gang hollers in local for more miscreants wanting to get in on the action. A great fight ensues, the vigilantes get slaughtered, the mission gets well and truly ****** up, all the mission-runner's wrecks, loot, remaining NPC and mission objectives are ours! Victory!

With the nerf to aggressive drones, this looks like to be the ideal replacement for giving mission runners headaches!

+1

Kenrailae
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#514 - 2014-01-29 12:11:33 UTC
@ OP

No. Welcome to Eve.

The Law is a point of View

The NPE IS a big deal

Abdul 'aleem
Sumiko Yoshida Corporation
#515 - 2014-01-29 12:19:52 UTC  |  Edited by: Abdul 'aleem
Lawson Finch wrote:
This is great!

It will deter salvagers and thieves from going in solo and encourages team-play.
Team-play is good for the game!
So, I get myself a gang of ruffians and go crash some poor sop's mission. Me and my gang all get suspect flagged.

One of the following things happen:

* The mission-runner sees several suspect-flagged ships in his mission, wets his knickers and warps out.
All his wrecks, loot, remaining NPC and mission objectives are ours! Victory!

* The mission-runner sees several suspect-flagged ships in his mission and shoots. Our gang, having RR, overwhelms the mission-runner and explodes him! His wreck and modules, NPC wrecks, loot, remaining NPC and mission objectives are ours! Victory!

* The missioner hollers in Local for help and invites a couple of white-knights. My gang hollers in local for more miscreants wanting to get in on the action. A great fight ensues, the vigilantes get slaughtered, the mission gets well and truly ****** up, all the mission-runner's wrecks, loot, remaining NPC and mission objectives are ours! Victory!

With the nerf to aggressive drones, this looks like to be the ideal replacement for giving mission runners headaches!

+1



Hey man I totally don't think it will that easy for the griefers; I have faith that the missioners will take advantage of the opportunity to set counter-gank traps and/or hire protection for high risk missions.

Some have even posted that they would deliberately accept missions with the sole intention to ambush gankers and mission invaders using their multiple accounts.

There would be many more possibilities available to missioners than currently exist that is for sure.

And let's face the facts: if your gang wants to grief a missioner, you can do it pretty much the same before or after this suspect flag is implemented. A suspect flag just gives the missioners more legal options.

Thanks for the +1.

But, the carebear missioners are going to kill you, and the loot will belong to them Blink

The ability for everyone and their allies to legally counter-gank mission invaders... yes please. Add a Suspect Flag for Mission Invasion

Click "like" in the original post to support it.

dexington
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#516 - 2014-01-29 12:23:45 UTC
This suggestion is clearly not as simple as just applying suspect timer to anyone who enters a mission area.

You are literally suggesting changes to fleet, fleet warp and the procedure of reconnecting after a disconnect, this is not including what needs to be changed for the ownership of mission sites to work.

And you want all this done so people can't steal loot from cosmos missions?, this is beyond ridiculous...

I'm a relatively respectable citizen. Multiple felon perhaps, but certainly not dangerous.

Lawson Finch
Doomheim
#517 - 2014-01-29 12:25:57 UTC
Abdul 'aleem wrote:
But, the carebear missioners are going to kill you Blink


LolLolLol

Honestly, I sincerely hope they give it their best shot!
It's going to be a massacre!

It's a shame this idea only has a handful of likes and no CSM or DEV interest Sad
Abdul 'aleem
Sumiko Yoshida Corporation
#518 - 2014-01-29 12:31:46 UTC  |  Edited by: Abdul 'aleem
dexington wrote:
This suggestion is clearly not as simple as just applying suspect timer to anyone who enters a mission area.

You are literally suggesting changes to fleet, fleet warp and the procedure of reconnecting after a disconnect, this is not including what needs to be changed for the ownership of mission sites to work.



Only CCP knows how easy or hard it would be to implement. There are a lot of existing mechanics that do things very similar to what would be needed to for a suspect flag for mission invasion to work. They have been posted already supporting the opinion that CCP should be able to make this change.

If you know of any specific technical reasons to support your statements, feel free to post them so people can discuss.

dexington wrote:


And you want all this done so people can't steal loot from cosmos missions?, this is beyond ridiculous...



No the intention was never to prevent mission item theft, just to raise the risk of to mission invaders (mission thieves) and balance out the risk/reward equation on both sides.

Also, to create more legal options to counter mission invasion since there are really no legitimate legal options right now.

The suggested suspect flag for mission invasion accomplishes both of these and much more.

The ability for everyone and their allies to legally counter-gank mission invaders... yes please. Add a Suspect Flag for Mission Invasion

Click "like" in the original post to support it.

Abdul 'aleem
Sumiko Yoshida Corporation
#519 - 2014-01-29 12:35:28 UTC  |  Edited by: Abdul 'aleem
Lawson Finch wrote:


It's a shame this idea only has a handful of likes and no CSM or DEV interest Sad



Yeah we agree there. A dev is needed to at least comment on how feasible it would be to implement the suggested suspect flag and to address posts like dexington's.

In the meantime, I can only guess based on current mechanics that it would be fairly easy to add.

By the way, it is very refreshing to actually see a "pirate" embracing the risks of in-game piracy. You have my respect, sir.

Oh and yeah it'll be a massacre, but maybe you at least won't get podded Big smile

The ability for everyone and their allies to legally counter-gank mission invaders... yes please. Add a Suspect Flag for Mission Invasion

Click "like" in the original post to support it.

dexington
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#520 - 2014-01-29 12:42:32 UTC  |  Edited by: dexington
Abdul 'aleem wrote:
dexington wrote:
This suggestion is clearly not as simple as just applying suspect timer to anyone who enters a mission area.

You are literally suggesting changes to fleet, fleet warp and the procedure of reconnecting after a disconnect, this is not including what needs to be changed for the ownership of mission sites to work.



Only CCP knows how easy or hard it would be to implement. There are a lot of existing mechanics that do things very similar to what would be needed to for a suspect flag for mission invasion to work. They have been posted already supporting the opinion that CCP should be able to make this change.

If you know of any specific technical reasons to support your statements, feel free to post them so people can discuss.


I find it very unlikely this is going to be considered a small prioritized issue, have you any idea how many years it took for ccp to fix neutral remote repping in hi-sec?

Even minor adjustments to the drone ui have been buried in the backlog for years, you clearly need to play eve for a few more years if you honestly believe this is something that is going to be implemented any time soon.

I'm a relatively respectable citizen. Multiple felon perhaps, but certainly not dangerous.