These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Previous Topic Next Topic
Abdul 'aleem
Sumiko Yoshida Corporation
#41 - 2014-01-23 08:01:47 UTC  |  Edited by: Abdul 'aleem
Gigan Amilupar wrote:
Basil Pupkin wrote:
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.


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


Yep I agree.

The intention was never to remove the possibility of mission theft. Just balance out options and the whole risk/reward equation on both sides.


Edit: Suspect flag is the suggestion

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
#42 - 2014-01-23 08:05:01 UTC
Hunter Arngrahm wrote:
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.

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

Oh god.
Basil Pupkin
Republic Military School
#43 - 2014-01-23 08:05:38 UTC
Riot Girl wrote:
Hunter Arngrahm wrote:
Because they may not even have the opportunity because CONCORD silently looms over their shoulder.

CONCORD are killing suicide gankers before they gank now?


CONCORD doesn't let us kill suicide gankers before they gank, that's what he meant.

Being teh freightergankbear automatically puts you below missionbear and minerbear in carebear hierarchy.

If you're about to make "this will make eve un-eve" argument, odds are you are defending some utterly horrible mechanics against a good change.
Hunter Arngrahm
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#44 - 2014-01-23 08:11:13 UTC
Riot Girl wrote:

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


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.
Riot Girl
You'll Cowards Don't Even Smoke Crack
#45 - 2014-01-23 08:12:13 UTC
Basil Pupkin wrote:
Riot Girl wrote:
Hunter Arngrahm wrote:
Because they may not even have the opportunity because CONCORD silently looms over their shoulder.

CONCORD are killing suicide gankers before they gank now?


CONCORD doesn't let us kill suicide gankers before they gank, that's what he meant.

You're supposed to be the ganker...

Oh god.
Mallak Azaria
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#46 - 2014-01-23 08:13:00 UTC
Wait until he starts talking about how criminal acts are isk faucets.

This post was lovingly crafted by a member of the Goonwaffe Posting Cabal, proud member of the popular gay hookup site somethingawful.com, Spelling Bee, Grammar Gestapo & #1 Official Gevlon Goblin Fanclub member.
Riot Girl
You'll Cowards Don't Even Smoke Crack
#47 - 2014-01-23 08:14:17 UTC
Hunter Arngrahm wrote:
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.


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.

Oh god.
Abdul 'aleem
Sumiko Yoshida Corporation
#48 - 2014-01-23 08:14:35 UTC  |  Edited by: Abdul 'aleem
Riot Girl wrote:
Hunter Arngrahm wrote:
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.

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



Plausible doesn't equal practical. It sometimes does not even mean possible.

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
#49 - 2014-01-23 08:16:56 UTC
Abdul 'aleem wrote:
Plausibale doesn't equal practical.

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

Oh god.
Mallak Azaria
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#50 - 2014-01-23 08:19:30 UTC
Abdul 'aleem wrote:
Plausibale doesn't equal practical.


So we can basically sum this down to the basis of your entire argument, your decision to be a victim. You just don't want to employ the 20 or so counter-measures that would vastly mitigate the risk of this happening.

This post was lovingly crafted by a member of the Goonwaffe Posting Cabal, proud member of the popular gay hookup site somethingawful.com, Spelling Bee, Grammar Gestapo & #1 Official Gevlon Goblin Fanclub member.
Abdul 'aleem
Sumiko Yoshida Corporation
#51 - 2014-01-23 08:19:58 UTC
Riot Girl wrote:
Abdul 'aleem wrote:
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?

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.
Mallak Azaria
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#52 - 2014-01-23 08:21:28 UTC
Abdul 'aleem wrote:
Riot Girl wrote:
Abdul 'aleem wrote:
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?


The sandbox comes to mind.

This post was lovingly crafted by a member of the Goonwaffe Posting Cabal, proud member of the popular gay hookup site somethingawful.com, Spelling Bee, Grammar Gestapo & #1 Official Gevlon Goblin Fanclub member.
Hunter Arngrahm
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#53 - 2014-01-23 08:23:06 UTC
Riot Girl wrote:
Hunter Arngrahm wrote:
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.


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.
Erotica 1
Krypteia Operations
#54 - 2014-01-23 08:24:12 UTC  |  Edited by: Erotica 1
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 sort 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.

See Bio for isk doubling rules. If you didn't read bio, chances are you funded those who did.
Riot Girl
You'll Cowards Don't Even Smoke Crack
#55 - 2014-01-23 08:31:42 UTC  |  Edited by: Riot Girl
Hunter Arngrahm wrote:
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.

Do you want to just transfer your character to me and let me play it for you? For clarification, my point is that I resent having to explain things you should be able to figure out on your own.

Oh god.
Hunter Arngrahm
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#56 - 2014-01-23 08:33:21 UTC
Erotica 1 wrote:
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.


As someone that loathes grinding and only does missions because he needs the isk, I've been screaming for variety to these things. Not just "Oh, they're all predictable!", I want gameplay variety. Give me a Mining mission where I have to bump a NPC Orca out of a belt, or kill mining ships before their backup arrives. Give me a Security mission that requires a cloaking device so I can wait for rats to burn past me to pick off a key target. Give me a mission where I need to fly Logistics to keep a POS or some other thing alive long enough for friendly rat reinforcements to arrive. Give me missions that require me to use ships other than one battleship with different damage types and different hardeners. 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.
Mallak Azaria
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#57 - 2014-01-23 08:35:32 UTC
Hunter Arngrahm wrote:
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.


Player interaction: Annoying.

This post was lovingly crafted by a member of the Goonwaffe Posting Cabal, proud member of the popular gay hookup site somethingawful.com, Spelling Bee, Grammar Gestapo & #1 Official Gevlon Goblin Fanclub member.
Hunter Arngrahm
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#58 - 2014-01-23 08:37:25 UTC
Riot Girl wrote:
For clarification, my point is that I resent having to explain things you should be able to figure out on your own.


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.
Hunter Arngrahm
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#59 - 2014-01-23 08:44:17 UTC  |  Edited by: Hunter Arngrahm
Mallak Azaria wrote:
Hunter Arngrahm wrote:
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.


Player interaction: Annoying.



You know, this hardly justifies a response, but I've nothing better to do. In what way is this any real player interaction? Attempted suicide gank? That's player interaction. Competition? That's player interaction. Chatting? That's player interaction. Simply watching what I do and salvaging while I do my mission, completely independent of what I do? Hardly counts as player interaction. You can argue semantics all you like, but it's still a really bad argument.

EDIT: To expand on this, for one, "trying to steal the mission item" doesn't really count as competition when they're in a frigate orbiting the ship that will drop the mission loot, and I'm in a battleship upwards of 70km away in no way able to get to that item before they can. Two, if pirates are sociable I find them far more entertaining, in fact, I actually tend to chat with them for some time, even make friends with them. That's player interaction, that's fun, that's something that makes me stick around EVE. When they just do their own thing in a completely impersonal and mechanical fashion without regarding you in any way, like many pirates do, that really doesn't mean much in the way of player interaction. I mean, sure, semantics, it counts, but would you prefer to chat with someone, maybe have some fun with the situation, or just watch them ignore everything you say and wait for you to kill the trigger for a mission item to drop so they can attempt to ransom it to you from the safety of a station? Would you find that entertaining, or simply annoying? What if this is the 5th time they've attempted it?
Abdul 'aleem
Sumiko Yoshida Corporation
#60 - 2014-01-23 08:55:12 UTC  |  Edited by: Abdul 'aleem
Hunter Arngrahm wrote:
Riot Girl wrote:
For clarification, my point is that I resent having to explain things you should be able to figure out on your own.


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.


Yes this was true several pages ago for most objections.

From the start for some.

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.

This has been a great day.

Take care all o7

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.