These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Gawain Edmond
Khanid Bureau of Industry
#101 - 2014-01-23 13:53:43 UTC
Abdul 'aleem wrote:
Gawain Edmond wrote:
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



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.


But that's not fair shooting someone is far more serious than stealing someones stuff. Concord are all happy with people taking revenge, hence why you can explode people for stealing your stuff, but being able to shoot someone for being in a part of space near you isn't a criminal act. If you want the right to shoot someone then you gotta give them the same right it's only fair.

If someone steals from a mission wreck then alpha them, if you're not set up to do that then it's your own fault you failed to protect your stuff the tools are all there for you in the game already. If you choose to blow up the rat that has the loot while they're right next to it and you don't have them locked and you can see they're going to steal your stuff then you deserve to lose it, as I said the tools are in the game to prevent them from stealing your stuff. Oh and the "high probability" of the loot exploding with their ship is 50% which isn't high by any stretch of the imagination.

So once someone has stolen you're stuff from the mission why don't you just go and steal someone elses stuff from their mission? No lies about "i'm not a pirate" it's not their stuff till they get it to a station the same way yours doesn't belong to you till you get it to a station and the same way the part of space you're in isn't yours till you get it in a station which means they can't be trespassing as they're not in your captains quarters (if they were it'd be hacking and they'd get in trouble)

sorry I rambled think i got most of the "." and "," in the right place for it to make sense
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#102 - 2014-01-23 14:47:32 UTC
Having skip read the last few posts (I've had a few beers at lunch so I could have misread/not bothered to red...):

Problem: In some very specific instances in COSMOS missions a very high value loot is dropped. The thief is sitting afk in an alt, monitoring the standard missions site. The thief alt jumps in to the mission site and pootles on over to the mission loot drop, aligns, loots and insta-warps out. The thief then ransoms the missioner on the basis that they will lose *lall* future COSMOS missions otherwise.

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.

The key point here is that there is literally a split-second where the looter is vulnerable which is extremely minimal risk as the missioner can do nothing until they go suspect. That to me makes this an exploit of the game mechanics, but only because of the unique value of the item in question. In any other mission you can let it reset or just accept the standings loss.

Changing the game mechanics is a non-starter as it requires code change that would impact all sorts of other areas, hence suggesting a simple change to the mission loot location. This principle should apply (in my opinion) to any other COSOMS (and only these) missions with similar loot issues.

Hopefully that is relatively clear :D
Riot Girl
You'll Cowards Don't Even Smoke Crack
#103 - 2014-01-23 15:02:32 UTC
Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote:
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.

Have an interceptor orbiting the NPC @ 500 for looting and tackling.

Oh god.
Meyr
Di-Tron Heavy Industries
OnlyFleets.
#104 - 2014-01-23 15:14:45 UTC  |  Edited by: ISD Ezwal
OH. MY. GOD.

Truly, there are no tears like pirate/griefer/ganker tears.

What we have here is someone trying to earn a living (let's face it, no one does missions because they're INTERESTING). Someone else plans on interrupting their work and stealing the results. In the process of that theft, they (a) conspire, and (b) trespass into something that, were it not for the mission-runner interacting with an agent, would not otherwise exist.

Points (a) and (b) certainly amount to what, in the real world, would result in your detention and questioning by the police, to say nothing of being arrested, tried, and convicted.

What's been proposed here is a possible method of leveling the playing field, by making an uninvited intrusion into a mission pocket an act that would mark you as a viable target for the mission-runner.

And you guys are crying up a storm! Isn't greater opportunity for PVP what damned near every one of you guys are constantly asking for in these very same forums? Now, you're hiding behind CONCORD because, "Don't make MY fun harder or riskier, CCP, just those lazy, weak, wimpy hisec carebears!"

Personally, I feel that missions like this should spawn in more than one location - meaning that Princess Whatsherbitch can't simply camp one system, looking for a certain type of ship, and easily warp to that target, nearly certain of an easy, fat payday. Have them actually spawn in a system like Poinen or Osmon - that way, if you want to steal the mission loot/reward, you have to EARN it - work your butt off, put in some skull sweat.

Hey, you want to camp the place where the mission is given, note the player and shipname, go to several other BUSY systems looking for that player in local, scan the system, use D-scan to help isolate a result with a proper name, warp to it, and steal the loot, you've EARNED IT, and the mission-runner will have learned to do simple things, like changing their ship name.

In the meantime, keep on crying, guys.

*Snip* Removed reply to a deleted post. ISD Ezwal.
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
#105 - 2014-01-23 15:16:30 UTC
It is a bad idea, and won't solve the problem. The problem of skewed cost/risk/reward does exist, and laughably on the pirates side. I will admit that I have not done these missions, but unless the mission itself rewards ISK or item worth 1.5 billion ISK, then the value to the missioner is no where near that mark. If it was, then most would gladly pay the 500 millon, and perhaps even be able to find backers to help fund the ransom. This does not happen, so I am assuming the Reward is more in line with other missions in the game where pirates want to demand 50+ million for a damsel that only pays maybe 2 million. Probably the biggest part of the skewed Cost/Risk/Reward is that this is a one time deal for the missioner with massive repercussions for failure, while the pirate can victimize new missioners in the same mission several times a day as opportunity arises with minimal repercussions should he fail.

I would suggest instead that the mission items be of a sufficient size that pushes the cargo capacity of the ship intended to run the mission. Thus no taking in a frigate to loot something it takes a battleship to get to. This would at least help balance the cost portion, and not give a huge agility edge to the guy that also has 100% of the initiative on his side too. If we are going to make this a race, lets not fill the guy that has everything to lose shoe's with lead bricks too. I would even suggest some of these missions require escorted fleets to complete, with objectives requiring an industrial to cart off.

A look at the aggro mechanics might still be in order too. If that NPC fleet is there to protect that one ship, then an enemy vessel orbiting that ship should get everything that fleet can throw at it, including the kitchen sink. Altering those ships so they can better assist their fleets in defending them by giving them webs and such. In these missions aggro priority should be on anyone actually shooting the protected ship first, and then whoever is closest to the protected ship. NPC fleet manuvers should reflect this as well, with ships trying to maintain optimal positions on their protected ship to defend it rather than optimal position on their current target. Such missions could essentially be two fleets, one designated for attack behavior, the other for guard behavior.


Basically, there is a problem, and the mission runner is in a largely untenable position with the current setup. While the OP's idea is poor because it wont serve its own purpose while negatively impacting others, changes are warrented to address current problems.
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#106 - 2014-01-23 15:17:48 UTC  |  Edited by: Corraidhin Farsaidh
Indeed, a possible solution, similar to sitting right on top of them as you kill them, but it seems that most missioners don't realize this can happen in the manner that it does which leaves the missioner in an impossible position in many cases. Even with an interceprtor pilot there (assuming the missioner is in a corp with a skilled inty pilot) this is hit and miss as it would be fastest finger first on the looting against the thief.

In this (and only in this or very similar COSMOS missions) situation I firmly believe that the loot should only be accessible to the actual mission runner. Then if the thief wants it they would need to ambush the mission runner who can then retaliate.

This is only an issue due to the lockout from any further COSMOS missions, in any other situation then good look to the thief..
Abdul 'aleem
Sumiko Yoshida Corporation
#107 - 2014-01-23 15:58:56 UTC  |  Edited by: Abdul 'aleem
Mike Voidstar wrote:
It is a bad idea, and won't solve the problem. The problem of skewed cost/risk/reward does exist, and laughably on the pirates side. I will admit that I have not done these missions, but unless the mission itself rewards ISK or item worth 1.5 billion ISK, then the value to the missioner is no where near that mark. If it was, then most would gladly pay the 500 millon, and perhaps even be able to find backers to help fund the ransom. This does not happen, so I am assuming the Reward is more in line with other missions in the game where pirates want to demand 50+ million for a damsel that only pays maybe 2 million. Probably the biggest part of the skewed Cost/Risk/Reward is that this is a one time deal for the missioner with massive repercussions for failure, while the pirate can victimize new missioners in the same mission several times a day as opportunity arises with minimal repercussions should he fail.

I would suggest instead that the mission items be of a sufficient size that pushes the cargo capacity of the ship intended to run the mission. Thus no taking in a frigate to loot something it takes a battleship to get to. This would at least help balance the cost portion, and not give a huge agility edge to the guy that also has 100% of the initiative on his side too. If we are going to make this a race, lets not fill the guy that has everything to lose shoe's with lead bricks too. I would even suggest some of these missions require escorted fleets to complete, with objectives requiring an industrial to cart off.

A look at the aggro mechanics might still be in order too. If that NPC fleet is there to protect that one ship, then an enemy vessel orbiting that ship should get everything that fleet can throw at it, including the kitchen sink. Altering those ships so they can better assist their fleets in defending them by giving them webs and such. In these missions aggro priority should be on anyone actually shooting the protected ship first, and then whoever is closest to the protected ship. NPC fleet manuvers should reflect this as well, with ships trying to maintain optimal positions on their protected ship to defend it rather than optimal position on their current target. Such missions could essentially be two fleets, one designated for attack behavior, the other for guard behavior.


Basically, there is a problem, and the mission runner is in a largely untenable position with the current setup. While the OP's idea is poor because it wont serve its own purpose while negatively impacting others, changes are warrented to address current problems.


I am certain that many options exist. Some easier, some harder to implement.

There is a lot of "this is terrible idea" and "this won't work," but very few people voicing these opinions actually back them up with facts.

In the spirit of this forum, maybe actually providing factual support for these types of opinions would help move the conversation forward?

If it's a bad idea, not a problem. It there is a better solution, not a problem. But, I am certain that no one in this conversation is at a level where they are incapable of making an error or can't gain something from another perspective.

Support your opinions with facts so there is something tangible to talk about.

The only significant issue with this potential change, at least the only one that someone was brave enough to throw into the dialog, is that salvagers would be be flagged as well if they warped illegally into a mission site. And this was only considered an issue because of what someone said was CCP's position to keep salvagers in a position to salvage without getting flagged.

If anyone of the "this is a terrible idea" folks knows of another legitimate problem with this idea, it would be much more constructive to voice the actual concern rather than to simply throw out the opinions.

Edit: the issue of disconnect is also semi-valid, but cannot be validated unless a dev comments.

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
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#108 - 2014-01-23 16:14:38 UTC
In terms of the idea of flagging people jumping to mission site as suspect I can't agree with that one. The person warping in has done nothing illegal. The mission runner must prepare themselves on the basis that the incoming ship *may* do something illegal and gain a suspect flag. Until the point that they do then they are just an irritant.

To answer Mike Voidstar's point: You are correct that the value of the item doesn't translate into value to the missioner, they return the item and get the (much lower) mission reward. However, failure in a COSMOS mission prevents the player affected from running any further COSMOS missions, which then does become a potentially large loss in possible ISK and standings. Hence my belief that the mission mechanics for this mission specifically should be changed (as the value of the loot item is so high as to be prohibitive to an average player to pay the ransom or replace it before the mission expires).

Apologies if I'm telling you stuff you already know, but there may be others reading this who don't know..
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
#109 - 2014-01-23 16:55:24 UTC
Some points of the OP need to be corrected before he can understand the negative impacts of his idea. Mainly, the ownership of the space does not brlong to the missioner. Anyone can go anywhere they like, doing anything they want to do. This much of the 'sandbox' stance pirates use to justify their behavior I agree with.

High Sec is supposed to inflict penalties on those instigating illegal combat actions on otherwise peacable, though not necessarily well meaning, individuals. You dont have the right to defend that space, only your own ship. You have the option of attacking those that have stolen from you, but not those who might.

Therefore, the idea of flagging people for entering where they have every right to be because they might do something bad is not a good idea. Further, the idea does nothing to protect you from being locked out of future content. It is a bad idea because it negatively impacts other people while not addressing the problem you want it implemented for. Take off your blinkers and come up with a solution that at least addresses your problem and progress can be started.

The specific nature of these COSMOS missions is a special case, and pretty unique in EVE. Doing something about stealing the item locking you out of the content forever should be looked at... Maybe a less rewarding mission without a yoinkable objective to bypass this particular part, which would address some of the imballanced reward profile the pirates are using to demand such exorbiant fees to return the item, which is then often dropped in a can for the unknowing to loot andd get killed for stealing, or station trade scammed. Make losing the item a loss, but not an unrecoverable one and the specialized piracy issues surrounding this particular mission will solve themselves.
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#110 - 2014-01-23 17:14:28 UTC
Agreed, I really think the issue here is around a very specific mission that allows a game-breaking (potentially, for the rest of the COSMOS missions) action to be taken. It is the mission that should be fixed, not the mechanics that allow the theft to occur.
Qalix
Long Jump.
#111 - 2014-01-23 17:30:18 UTC
Do you see now why I sent you here? Do you see how every single example I thought of is represented in this thread?

What the OP has failed to mention (maybe he has somewhere, but I'm not reading 10 pages of crap to find it) is that his objection is based on a specific incident in a specific mission. The original person who had this happen (Wei Todaki stolen) had his mission reset by a GM. It appears that CCP has decided to handle the theft of unique mission critical items through customer service. I don't know for sure, but I'm reasonably certain that in the old days CCP would NEVER reset a mission for that reason. That alone convinces me that this is how they've decided to handle it. I imagine they're using the same logic they use for the Sisters arc, noob systems, and the like.

In any event, if the OP wanted a real solution, its much simpler. CCP can just lock the can with the item in it and give you the key with mission acceptance. Problem solved.
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
#112 - 2014-01-23 21:15:04 UTC  |  Edited by: Mike Voidstar
In point of fact the space your mission is set in is *not* your property in any manner at all. The owner of that space is listed at the top left of the screen. The owner of the buildings and ships in that space can be seen in the show info tab. In most cases your missions are in defense of specific space or physical assets against clearly defined enemies (much like a pvp wardec), and are not a carte blanche free fire zone intentionally.

Your assertion that it is your space because it was inaccesible until you accepted the mission is false. This is only one reason your idea fails. The second, larger reason is that CONCORD only allows reactive actions to be taken in defense of property. This is why you cannot fire until fired upon, nor fire upon a theif until your property is in his posession. He has done nothing he has no right to until the moment he scoops your cargo into his bay.

You have a legitimate beef, but your idea does nothing to address it. The reasons it is a poor idea have been outlined, and alternative suggestions both for changes and actions you can take presently have been presented.

You may think that it is a small and meaningless price to pay to be flagged just for entering space even with no ill intent and every right to be there, but its a dangerous idea open to plenty of abuse in the hands of EVE's player base.
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed
Agony Empire
#113 - 2014-01-23 21:18:29 UTC

There are several methods to address this issue:

Criminal Flags are certainly no one of them.

Suspect flags, where you are responsible for destroying their ships, would be more reasonable, but you have to consider how to implement it.

In the end, it is the static nature of these site locations and the "mission does not reset at DT" that needs to be addressed. Fix those two aspects, and then there is no longer an issue.
Abdul 'aleem
Sumiko Yoshida Corporation
#114 - 2014-01-23 21:25:05 UTC  |  Edited by: Abdul 'aleem
Mike Voidstar wrote:
In point of fact the space your mission is set in is *not* your property in any manner at all. The owner of that space is listed at the top right of the screen. The owner of the buildings and ships in that space can be seen in the show info tab. In most cases your missions are in defense of specific space or physical assets against clearly defined enemies (much like a pvp wardec), and are not a carte blanche free fire zone intentionally.

Your assertion that it is your space because it was inaccesible until you accepted the mission is false. This is only one reason your idea fails. The second, larger reason is that CONCORD only allows reactive actiojs to be taken in defense of property. This is why you cannot fire until fired upon, nor fire upon a theif until your property is in his posession. He has done nothing he has no right to until the moment he scoops your cargo into his bay.

You have a legitimate beef, but your idea does nothing to address it. The reasons it is a poor idea have been outlined, and alternative suggestions both for changes and actions you can take presently have been presented.

You may think that it is a small and meaningless price to pay to be flagged just for entering space even with no ill intent and every right to be there, but its a dangerous idea open to plenty of abuse in the hands of EVE's player base.


Well, you are welcome to your opinion. At the very least, thanks for making your case and not just posting your opinion.

There are many reasons that the space is proven to be owned by the missioner. They have all been posted in this and the original thread in Missions & Complexes.

As a summary:

- the mission pocket is created by the private actions of the missioner for the purpose of completing a specific task assigned to that missioner

-there is no way to access this space without the owner being involved

Again, trespassing is a criminal action. For reference http://definitions.uslegal.com/p/prowling/.

Edit: My use of the term criminal was intended to help understand the in-game action in RL terms. This has caused some confusion.

The in-game label for mission invasion / trespassing would be "suspicious act." In RL, trespassing is crime and can be "criminal." By that standard, it is even easier to argue that the lesser label of "suspicious" is appropriate for the in-game action.

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.
Nivin Sajjad
Halal Gunnery
#115 - 2014-01-23 21:27:03 UTC
Why don't you just ask a gm to reset the mission for you, Abdul. Seems to have worked out for you just fine last time.
Abdul 'aleem
Sumiko Yoshida Corporation
#116 - 2014-01-23 21:31:54 UTC  |  Edited by: Abdul 'aleem
Nivin Sajjad wrote:
Why don't you just ask a gm to reset the mission for you, Abdul. Seems to have worked out for you just fine last time.


It's all spelled out in the original post for anyone who genuinely wants to know.

Edit:

And, the fact that CCP does in fact reset the misson is proof that they acknowledge that a problem exists.

I am offering a suggestion that I believe is better than just resetting the mission.

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
#117 - 2014-01-23 21:34:04 UTC  |  Edited by: Abdul 'aleem
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:

There are several methods to address this issue:

Criminal Flags are certainly no one of them.

Suspect flags, where you are responsible for destroying their ships, would be more reasonable, but you have to consider how to implement it.

In the end, it is the static nature of these site locations and the "mission does not reset at DT" that needs to be addressed. Fix those two aspects, and then there is no longer an issue.



Sorry, the proposal is for suspect flag. My mistake. I have corrected the original post and others.

Also, I agree with your last comments. Random, or semi-random, system locations for the missions and/or allowing for reset are both totally valid solutions. Probably better than my proposal.

I just thought that those would not be feasible for the developers. It's really up to them in the end, but if they can do those two, they would definitely fix many problems.

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.
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed
Agony Empire
#118 - 2014-01-23 21:50:30 UTC
Abdul 'aleem wrote:
Mike Voidstar wrote:
In point of fact the space your mission is set in is *not* your property in any manner at all. The owner of that space is listed at the top right of the screen. The owner of the buildings and ships in that space can be seen in the show info tab. In most cases your missions are in defense of specific space or physical assets against clearly defined enemies (much like a pvp wardec), and are not a carte blanche free fire zone intentionally.

Your assertion that it is your space because it was inaccesible until you accepted the mission is false. This is only one reason your idea fails. The second, larger reason is that CONCORD only allows reactive actiojs to be taken in defense of property. This is why you cannot fire until fired upon, nor fire upon a theif until your property is in his posession. He has done nothing he has no right to until the moment he scoops your cargo into his bay.

You have a legitimate beef, but your idea does nothing to address it. The reasons it is a poor idea have been outlined, and alternative suggestions both for changes and actions you can take presently have been presented.

You may think that it is a small and meaningless price to pay to be flagged just for entering space even with no ill intent and every right to be there, but its a dangerous idea open to plenty of abuse in the hands of EVE's player base.


Well, you are welcome to your opinion. At the very least, thanks for making your case and not just posting your opinion.

There are many reasons that the space is proven to be private. They have all been posted in this and the original thread in Missions & Complexes.

As a summary:

- the mission pocket is created by the private actions of the missioner for the purpose of completing a specific tack assigned to that missioner

-there is no way to access this space without the owner being involved

Again, trespassping is a criminal action. For reference http://definitions.uslegal.com/p/prowling/.



1.) In empire space, the empires decide who is and is not trespassing. And if a person with negative standings towards the empire comes into system, they send the empire navies to attack them. At no point does a capsuleer own space in highsec or lowsec, so the concept of them "trespassing" is laughable. They have as much right to be there as you do.

2.) Criminal actions are for unlawful aggression. Unless they attack your ship, they are NOT committing a criminal action. At most they are committing a suspect action (which you get for stealing loot), at which point you'd have the right to defend your property, but you forfeit Concord protections if you do!

3.) Your option is extreme. Even if we only dished out suspect flags for entering another player's mission pocket, it still would cause all sorts of issues with players teaming up to run missions together. It would cause problems for ninja salvagers (guess what, the savlage isn't yours either!). It would hinder many other valid playstyles that involve sending a ship into another players mission.

4.) To get support, you really need a sense of balanced to your suggestions. They have the right to disrupt your missioning just as much as you have the right to mission. What can you change so you can complete the mission while accepting their disruption? If you feel combat should be implemented, it should you engaging in the combat with them able to defend themselves. And in the end, remember EvE is a dystopia. That means the world isn't ethically fair, the strong can bully the weak, and you only keep that which you can protect.
Abdul 'aleem
Sumiko Yoshida Corporation
#119 - 2014-01-23 22:08:56 UTC  |  Edited by: Abdul 'aleem
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:
Abdul 'aleem wrote:
Mike Voidstar wrote:
In point of fact the space your mission is set in is *not* your property in any manner at all. The owner of that space is listed at the top right of the screen. The owner of the buildings and ships in that space can be seen in the show info tab. In most cases your missions are in defense of specific space or physical assets against clearly defined enemies (much like a pvp wardec), and are not a carte blanche free fire zone intentionally.

Your assertion that it is your space because it was inaccesible until you accepted the mission is false. This is only one reason your idea fails. The second, larger reason is that CONCORD only allows reactive actiojs to be taken in defense of property. This is why you cannot fire until fired upon, nor fire upon a theif until your property is in his posession. He has done nothing he has no right to until the moment he scoops your cargo into his bay.

You have a legitimate beef, but your idea does nothing to address it. The reasons it is a poor idea have been outlined, and alternative suggestions both for changes and actions you can take presently have been presented.

You may think that it is a small and meaningless price to pay to be flagged just for entering space even with no ill intent and every right to be there, but its a dangerous idea open to plenty of abuse in the hands of EVE's player base.


Well, you are welcome to your opinion. At the very least, thanks for making your case and not just posting your opinion.

There are many reasons that the space is proven to be private. They have all been posted in this and the original thread in Missions & Complexes.

As a summary:

- the mission pocket is created by the private actions of the missioner for the purpose of completing a specific tack assigned to that missioner

-there is no way to access this space without the owner being involved

Again, trespassping is a criminal action. For reference http://definitions.uslegal.com/p/prowling/.



1.) In empire space, the empires decide who is and is not trespassing. And if a person with negative standings towards the empire comes into system, they send the empire navies to attack them. At no point does a capsuleer own space in highsec or lowsec, so the concept of them "trespassing" is laughable. They have as much right to be there as you do.

2.) Criminal actions are for unlawful aggression. Unless they attack your ship, they are NOT committing a criminal action. At most they are committing a suspect action (which you get for stealing loot), at which point you'd have the right to defend your property, but you forfeit Concord protections if you do!

3.) Your option is extreme. Even if we only dished out suspect flags for entering another player's mission pocket, it still would cause all sorts of issues with players teaming up to run missions together. It would cause problems for ninja salvagers (guess what, the savlage isn't yours either!). It would hinder many other valid playstyles that involve sending a ship into another players mission.

4.) To get support, you really need a sense of balanced to your suggestions. They have the right to disrupt your missioning just as much as you have the right to mission. What can you change so you can complete the mission while accepting their disruption? If you feel combat should be implemented, it should you engaging in the combat with them able to defend themselves. And in the end, remember EvE is a dystopia. That means the world isn't ethically fair, the strong can bully the weak, and you only keep that which you can protect.



1) CCP actually decides ownership rules. But, yes, I am asking for CCP to treat the missioner as the owner of the mission space created for them by their interaction with the mission agent and for the purpose of them completing a specific task. The result: a suspect flag for illegal trespassers (in this case the mission thieves/griefers) when they initiate warp to that missioner's pocket.

2) I posted the correction while you were typing this. Suspect flag is the correct suggested action.

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.

4) Unless you are saying that a thief should get Concord protection while they sit in another person's hisec mission pocket waiting to steal a mission item, which is happening now, this is all good.

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.
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
#120 - 2014-01-23 22:44:08 UTC
Saying the pocket (and apparently everything in it) is yours because you have been given a mission there is like saying my house became yours because I hired you to come and do some work inside. The assertion that you own a mission pocket because gou make it available upon accepting a mission is simply not true on any level within the game. Again, the owner of that space is clearly listed in the upper left of your screen. The rights and responsibilities granted to you are clearly deliniated in your mission log. If theives are to be attacked as part of the work you are to perform they will be clearly identified.

A theif isnt a theif until he has stolen something. Until you destroy the ship, you dont even have any property within the mission pocket to steal.

I am a big old boring carebear... I feel for the issue you have, and agree that changes should be made to level the playing field... But your suggestion is poor on every level from metagame logic to ingame lore.

The fact that it damages the legitimate playstyle of even a single player while doing nothing to address the concern you have is more than plenty of reason to send this idea back to the drawing board. In fact, it would damage salvagers, the randomly curious, those practicing probe skills, and even the odd duck that might want to horn in on your bounties by killing some of the ships in your mission rather than get their own. It does not matter why they want in the mission pocket, the fact is everyone has the perfect right to be there. That is the nature of sandbox gameplay.

It is not my opinion that determines who owns what. It is not a fact up or open to debate. That informatikn is clearly stated in game, you have only to check the info on any place or object in the game to be told.