These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed
Agony Empire
#161 - 2014-01-24 23:41:40 UTC
Abdul 'aleem wrote:
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:


While you may not have stated "make mission pockets combat arena's to protect mission objectives", flagging players that enter "your" mission space has this exact effect. The stated conclusion, is completely valid, such that, in general, your rebalance will have little to no impact on critical mission item theft.

Yes, it adds counter play, and creates new interesting fight possibilities (which I do agree is a good thing generally). I'm just not convinced this is the best option, given the fact it hinders other game play avenues.

I will agree that it is an interesting avenue to be contemplated.



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

My suggestion only opens the invader up to that risk.

Edit:

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

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

That is the intent.


I doesn't matter that the thief can't shoot first. The only way a missioner can protect his objective with your solution is to shoot the then combat commences. The strong and prepared will still take from the risk adverse mission runner, and cries about "princess Wei" will continue. I'm not against your suggestion, I just don't think it will solve anything out of the box.

Abdul 'aleem
Sumiko Yoshida Corporation
#162 - 2014-01-25 00:08:50 UTC  |  Edited by: Abdul 'aleem
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:


The only way a missioner can protect his objective with your solution is to shoot the then combat commences. The strong and prepared will still take from the risk adverse mission runner, and cries about "princess Wei" will continue. I'm not against your suggestion, I just don't think it will solve anything out of the box.




Suspect flags are global; anyone or everyone or no one can attack. It's not a killright.

If the invaders are so strong and prepared, they need not be afraid of a suspect flag when they invade/trespass.


The suggested suspect flag for trespassing will help to restore game balance and create counter-play options that do not currently exist. That is the intention. And it fits into the box almost perfectly.


Your comments are sounding kind of piratey....

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
#163 - 2014-01-25 19:52:52 UTC  |  Edited by: Abdul 'aleem
Karynn Denton wrote:
Abdul 'aleem wrote:
I believe that a suspect flag for trespassing would not have that much impact on salvagers. But, it is up to CCP whether they want to make/keep salvagers a protected class or not.


As a salvager, I can tell you - yes, it would. The L4 missions are a great source for large wrecks.


edited and reposted for clarity:

This suggestion does not criminalize salvaging at all. It only makes mission invasion/trespassing a suspicious act. Salvaging wrecks would not be criminal or suspicious at all. But, choosing to invade the missioner's site without permission to get that salvage would be a "suspcious act" and you would be flagged if you choose to do it (again without permission).

If CCP intended for salvagers to have 0 risk in salvaging, they would be immune to attack in all areas while they salvaged. It's legal to salvage wrecks in WH, Low and Null space, but doing so carries a certain amount of risk due to the location choice. The fact that salvagers can be attacked while salvaging in these locations is proof that CCP does not have the intention of making the choice to salvage risk free.

A suspect flag for trespassing just puts the decision to salvage in a mission owner's pocket without permission on par with the decision to salvage in WH, Low Sec or Null Sec space. They are never forced to go into any of these areas to salvage nor are they prevented. If the salvager chooses to enter these areas or invade a mission owner's space because the reward (ISK value of salvage) is higher, there is nothing wrong with it carrying a slightly higher level of risk.

In the end, the innocent salvager will only need to contact the missioner to get permission to salvage the site. The salvage thief/griefer gets the flag. If the site is empty/vacant/abandoned, the risk to any of them is almost zero.

An unintended bonus of adding a suspect flag for trespassing may be that it creates the opportunity for salvaging players to experience the risk/excitement associated with salvaging in high risk/high reward areas like WH, Low and Null without actually exposing them to the full risk of being in those areas....

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


I'm going into the pocket for the valid and legal reason of salvaging wrecks. This isn't a criminal act.
Your suggestion would make it so, which goes against what CCP have already stated on salvaging.



You have committed what is defined in RL as "trespassing" and it is a crime because you did so without the owner's permission.

For clarity: IRL you cannot legally go into my house without permission to get a drink of water, even though getting a drink of water is legal.

In-game terms: salvaging is legal and remains so... choosing to trespass/invade a missioner's pocket without permission is suspicious.

I am asking that CCP correctly identify the act of trespassing/invasion into a mission owner's space as a suspicious act and generate the appropriate suspect flag.

Sorry for confusing you by crossing RL terms and game terms.


TLDR

Salvaging is and always will be a legal act.

The chosen locations will carry risk.

If a suspect flag is generated for tespassing/mission invasion, choosing a missioner's space as the location for salvaging would just have the same risk as choosing to salvage in any other area with a higher risk/reward equation (WH, Low, Null).

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
#164 - 2014-01-26 14:11:51 UTC
By your logic every time a missioner warps into an empire navy mission they should go suspect, since empire ships are legal entities according to CONCORD, even if local empires disagree.
Seranova Farreach
Biomass Negative
#165 - 2014-01-26 16:54:09 UTC
theft rebalance? NOPE. just learn the new ESS mechanics and run in a cloaked ceptor or something

[u]___________________ http://i.imgur.com/d9Ee2ik.jpg[/u]

Abdul 'aleem
Sumiko Yoshida Corporation
#166 - 2014-01-27 02:59:06 UTC  |  Edited by: Abdul 'aleem
Nivin Sajjad wrote:
By your logic every time a missioner warps into an empire navy mission they should go suspect, since empire ships are legal entities according to CONCORD, even if local empires disagree.


It's obvious that you haven't read the original post, or you're trolling/thread crapping.

Since you are in fact a mission thief, I expect the latter.

The idea is to add a suspect flag to any player choosing to invade another player's mission pocket.

This makes that invader open to attack from anyone and everyone immediately.

The mission owner then immediately has the options to attack the invader alone, get help from anyone in local or not attack at all.

That's all.

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.

Qalix
Long Jump.
#167 - 2014-01-27 05:06:15 UTC
Karynn Denton wrote:
Nah, the little red crosses who you're intending to blap own the mission pocket - you, as the missioner, are trespassing on their facilities!

It really is as simple as that. When you blow up the Pleasure Hub, who's little deadspace facility is being blown up?

You know, you've never really addressed the core issue of your proposal. It requires action. A flag is pointless if no one ever fires on the suspect. Since no one can warp to your mission site without being flagged, who, besides you, is going to attack the suspect? And if it's you attacking them, what is different about the scenario in which they steal something from you and go suspect? If you don't fire on them in the second case, why would you fire on them in the first case? Presumably, your entire concept is built on the idea that, once flagged, the interloper can be dealt with. Since these guys are crashing your mission for the specific purpose of triggering aggression, how does the flagging change the equation?
goldiiee
Bureau of Astronomical Anomalies
#168 - 2014-01-27 05:13:12 UTC
Abdul 'aleem, I spent the evening arguing this same subject in Missions & Complexes, I agree that the intention to warp to a mission site, not given to you by the agent, is a suspect worthy action. But I can tell the risk averse Piratey types in the game do not want their Income nerfed in any way whatsoever.

Things that keep me up at night;  Why do we use a voice communication device to send telegraphs? Moore's Law should state, Once you have paid off the last PC upgrade you will need another.

goldiiee
Bureau of Astronomical Anomalies
#169 - 2014-01-27 05:19:36 UTC
Qalix wrote:
Karynn Denton wrote:
Nah, the little red crosses who you're intending to blap own the mission pocket - you, as the missioner, are trespassing on their facilities!

It really is as simple as that. When you blow up the Pleasure Hub, who's little deadspace facility is being blown up?

You know, you've never really addressed the core issue of your proposal. It requires action. A flag is pointless if no one ever fires on the suspect. Since no one can warp to your mission site without being flagged, who, besides you, is going to attack the suspect? And if it's you attacking them, what is different about the scenario in which they steal something from you and go suspect? If you don't fire on them in the second case, why would you fire on them in the first case? Presumably, your entire concept is built on the idea that, once flagged, the interloper can be dealt with. Since these guys are crashing your mission for the specific purpose of triggering aggression, how does the flagging change the equation?

That's easy, I can blap most anything that warps into my mission as I would tend to sit at my optimal from the warp-in point if I knew anyone warping in was an immediate suspect. Additionally I would drop a can at that point to ensure cloaked ship get exposed on warp-in. I feel very confident in my two boxes and an excess of 3000dps would make short work of an intruder, not mention a dropped Mobile depot would ensure the right tools for the job. But the current mechanic of wait till they screw you before you can screw yourself is unbalanced and a bit Anti-Missioner really.

Things that keep me up at night;  Why do we use a voice communication device to send telegraphs? Moore's Law should state, Once you have paid off the last PC upgrade you will need another.

Abdul 'aleem
Sumiko Yoshida Corporation
#170 - 2014-01-27 05:21:02 UTC
Goldiiee wrote:
Abdul 'aleem, I spent the evening arguing this same subject in Missions & Complexes, I agree that the intention to warp to a mission site, not given to you by the agent, is a suspect worthy action. But I can tell the risk averse Piratey types in the game do not want their Income nerfed in any way whatsoever.



Gankers/griefers/"pirates" and thieves are really scared about this change.

If they are subject to a suspect flag for mission invasion as I am suggesting, they have to put in more effort and assume greater risk for the same amount of reward.

This is obviously a really scary thing to said gankers/griefers/"pirates" and thieves.

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
#171 - 2014-01-27 05:31:22 UTC
Qalix wrote:


You know, you've never really addressed the core issue of your proposal. It requires action. A flag is pointless if no one ever fires on the suspect. Since no one can warp to your mission site without being flagged, who, besides you, is going to attack the suspect?



You're wrong.

Anyone accepting the missioner's fleet invite is exempt from the suspect flag.

Have you really read the original post? Or, are you thread crapping?


Qalix, why don't you just state why you feel invaders should be protected by Concord while they trespass into another player's mission site?


My suggestion offers everyone the right to shoot the invader, not just the missioner.

All that the missioner needs to do is offer a fleet invite to anyone willing to help.

The missioner may not even need to shoot the invader themselves to defend their mission site.

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
#172 - 2014-01-27 05:33:21 UTC
No one is scared of your proposed change. It hurts mission runners a lot more than it hurts gankers and thieves.
Riot Girl
You'll Cowards Don't Even Smoke Crack
#173 - 2014-01-27 05:36:48 UTC
Abdul 'aleem wrote:
they trespass into another player's mission site?

As explained numerous times, they are not trespassing. Anyone has the right to claim ownership of those sites.

I'm not sure why you're still flogging this dead horse.
Abdul 'aleem
Sumiko Yoshida Corporation
#174 - 2014-01-27 05:36:53 UTC  |  Edited by: Abdul 'aleem
Riot Girl wrote:
No one is scared of your proposed change. It hurts mission runners a lot more than it hurts gankers and thieves.



Hi Princess Achaja alt o/

It hurts no missioner because they never have to attack.

And, the missioner will always have Concord protection until they do attack.

If a suspect flag is applied to mission invaders, as is suggested, the invader could be killed by anyone who accepts the missioner's fleet invite and comes to assist.

The missioner never has to attack. They just have that option immediately and everyone else in game does too.

Edit:

Princess Achaja and her associates have been making lots of ISK from stealing mission items with little to no risk of counter attack for a long time.

It will be much harder for them to do it if this change is implemented, and they know this. That is why there has been so much thread crapping since the thread was started. My apologies to all.

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
#175 - 2014-01-27 05:51:32 UTC
Abdul 'aleem wrote:
It hurts no missioner because they never have to attack.

Their drones will.

Quote:
If a suspect flag is applied to mission invaders, as is suggested, the invader could be killed by anyone who accepts the missioner's fleet invite.

He can be killed by anyone anyway, without accepting a fleet invite.

Quote:
The missioner never has to attack. They just have that option immediately and everyone else in game does too.

The option is already there. You have all the tools you need to prevent your mission item being looted, figure it out for yourself.
Abdul 'aleem
Sumiko Yoshida Corporation
#176 - 2014-01-27 06:01:27 UTC  |  Edited by: Abdul 'aleem
Gigan Amilupar wrote:
Ok, I'm interjecting here. So, let's break it down.

1) I do condone the allowance for item theft and the like in mission pockets, it adds good gameplay and is part of the freedom of the sandbox.

2) I also recognize that the OP has made, potentially, a valid argument and that if CCP has taken past intervention in this mission it sets a precedent for his position, regardless of whether or not one agrees with CCPs actions.

3) The reason I have said the OP provides a "potentially" valid argument for this situation is that I have not been able to find (online) the system in which this mission occurs. If this situation occurs outside of high sec space, then I would say that while the mechanics could be improved (allowing the mission to be repeated and the like, as mentioned on page 1) the missioner should take the initiative and attack someone interfering. Even if this means a sec status hit.

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.

5) All things considered I would support, not a sec status hit, but suspect status for those entering mission/COSMOS deadspace complexes if they are not in fleet. There isn't a huge drawback to this mechanic, the interfering party is just more likely to get a gudfight as opposed to an easy mark. Chances are if you are entering someone else's mission zone your being a dirty thieving pirate, so act like one and be prepared for the consequences. I fully support such shenanigans in all areas of space, but I don't agree that such capsuleers should be, by proxy, protected by concord. That is to say, if you want to be a pirate, that's awesome, but you should not be shielded by game mechanics that skew engagements in your favor so much.

TL;DR This isn't a bad idea, as it would promote the chances of gudfights in high sec as opposed to concord protected theft. I would rather see the actual COSMOS mission mechanics improved, however, as this is clearly an outlier amongst missions and may not warrant a revisiting of crime mechanics.

But hey, that's just my thoughts, and I'm clearly biased towards wanting to see more gudfights in high sec as opposed to petty theft, so take it as you will.


It is indeed high sec space.

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
#177 - 2014-01-27 06:12:53 UTC
Abdul 'aleem wrote:
Princess Achaja and her associates have been making lots of ISK from stealing mission items with little to no risk of counter attack for a long time.

The risk of counter-attack is always there. The victims just don't take advantage of the opportunity because they're useless. This change is not going to stop them from being useless. Also please try to grow up. Throwing around accusations of alts, being scared, and claiming ownership of things you have no right to is not doing you any favours.
Riot Girl
You'll Cowards Don't Even Smoke Crack
#178 - 2014-01-27 06:24:16 UTC
I ignored the accusation because it's unfounded and I don't want to humour it.
Kirkwood Ross
Golden Profession
#179 - 2014-01-27 06:35:38 UTC
This opens up a new type of merc service for people who want to pop others in hi-sec. Go to a mission hub and cloak up in a mission, when a guy some sniffing around decloak and ambush.
Abdul 'aleem
Sumiko Yoshida Corporation
#180 - 2014-01-27 06:37:40 UTC  |  Edited by: Abdul 'aleem
Kirkwood Ross wrote:
This opens up a new type of merc service for people who want to pop others in hi-sec. Go to a mission hub and cloak up in a mission, when a guy some sniffing around decloak and ambush.



Good point.

A whole new profession... "vigilante?".... could be born.

And, I am sure missioners would pay to have the extra defense offered by mercs/vigilantes.

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.