These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Archibald Thistlewaite III
The Royal Society for the Prevention of Miners
#281 - 2014-01-27 14:14:32 UTC
Enough with the name calling.

You are still making presumptions about ownership.

You are suggesting making people suspect just for warping to a location. That is a very bad idea.

When I first started I used to salvage mission wrecks. I would scan down a likely ship, warp to the site to find out who was in there and ask them if I could salvage. Under you idea that would give me a suspect flag. That is a bad idea.

Someone scanning for a war target they, they know the guy is in a Maelstrom (insert ship of choice) I find 3 on scan. I pick the wrong one and I go suspect.

Its a very bad idea to have people suspect flagged just for warping to a location.

User of 'Bumblefck's Luscious & Luminous Mustachio Wax'
Abdul 'aleem
Sumiko Yoshida Corporation
#282 - 2014-01-27 14:16:07 UTC  |  Edited by: Abdul 'aleem
Goldiiee wrote:
Wow go to work come home and the same argument from a new toon.

Requesting a change to allow for the 'Intent to do harm' as a suspect flag is a reasonable change IMO considering the evolution or changes in the game that have adversely effected mission runners and their relative high-sec safety.

As we play (As a community) we get better at everything, this falls to both sides of the board, and a better criminal requires better controls, just like better ISK earners required a nerf to bounties to maintain balance.

This suggestion is simply an overdue balance.



Exactly.

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.
Archibald Thistlewaite III
The Royal Society for the Prevention of Miners
#283 - 2014-01-27 14:17:30 UTC
Abdul 'aleem wrote:
Archibald Thistlewaite III wrote:


...

Having people go suspect for warping to a location is a bad idea.

Salvaging is a profession CCP designed so you did not get any flags for doing. Your idea would effect them greatly.
I'm hunting a war target, I see them undock and warp to a safe. After scanning them down I warp my fleet to them only to find they were the other Vargur and the whole fleet goes suspect.

Having suspect flags based on warping to a location is a bad idea.



Add some more facts and support and there will be something to discuss.


NEW!

CCP Dropbear: “One problematic thing about “generic” missions is how they effectively isolate the mission-runner from other players and provide few avenues for social interaction. If you’re wondering why sometimes epics send players to nullsec, lowsec, exploration sites…well, this is a big part of the reason why.”

Kahega Amelden: “Don’t worry, CCP. We here at Suddenly Ninjas™ are working hard to add social interaction to generic missions.”

CCP Dropbear: “And we love you (and others like you) for it! In some weird and wonderful way, groups like yours operate as flag bearers for the full EVE experience, and we wouldn’t want to change, or get in the way of that.

“Also, lol.”

CCP Mitnal: “Our policy on this is extremely clear…Salvaging is a mini-profession within EVE and does not constitute stealing” From here

GM Faolchu: “This is an intended game mechanic and is in no way an exploit”

Senior GM Ytterbium: “Players are still completely free to salvage other pilot wrecks at will…and doing so is not considered as an exploit”

CCP Prism X: “Before the salvage enters those containers [your cargo-hold/hanger] it is not considered your stuff by the server code. Hence it’s not stealing.”

User of 'Bumblefck's Luscious & Luminous Mustachio Wax'
Abdul 'aleem
Sumiko Yoshida Corporation
#284 - 2014-01-27 14:18:08 UTC
Archibald Thistlewaite III wrote:
Enough with the name calling.

You are still making presumptions about ownership.

You are suggesting making people suspect just for warping to a location. That is a very bad idea.

When I first started I used to salvage mission wrecks. I would scan down a likely ship, warp to the site to find out who was in there and ask them if I could salvage. Under you idea that would give me a suspect flag. That is a bad idea.

Someone scanning for a war target they, they know the guy is in a Maelstrom (insert ship of choice) I find 3 on scan. I pick the wrong one and I go suspect.

Its a very bad idea to have people suspect flagged just for warping to a location.


You should really read the thread or at least the original post.

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.
Archibald Thistlewaite III
The Royal Society for the Prevention of Miners
#285 - 2014-01-27 14:18:42 UTC
Goldiiee wrote:
Wow go to work come home and the same argument from a new toon.

Requesting a change to allow for the 'Intent to do harm' as a suspect flag is a reasonable change IMO considering the evolution or changes in the game that have adversely effected mission runners and their relative high-sec safety.

As we play (As a community) we get better at everything, this falls to both sides of the board, and a better criminal requires better controls, just like better ISK earners required a nerf to bounties to maintain balance.

This suggestion is simply an overdue balance.


Do you honestly believe warping to a location should give you a suspect flag?

User of 'Bumblefck's Luscious & Luminous Mustachio Wax'
Abdul 'aleem
Sumiko Yoshida Corporation
#286 - 2014-01-27 14:19:50 UTC
Archibald Thistlewaite III wrote:
Goldiiee wrote:
Wow go to work come home and the same argument from a new toon.

Requesting a change to allow for the 'Intent to do harm' as a suspect flag is a reasonable change IMO considering the evolution or changes in the game that have adversely effected mission runners and their relative high-sec safety.

As we play (As a community) we get better at everything, this falls to both sides of the board, and a better criminal requires better controls, just like better ISK earners required a nerf to bounties to maintain balance.

This suggestion is simply an overdue balance.


Do you honestly believe warping to a location should give you a suspect flag?




Read the original post it is clearly stated there.

Fail troll is fail.

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.
Goldiiee
Bureau of Astronomical Anomalies
#287 - 2014-01-27 14:20:26 UTC
The presumption of ownership is based on all the given facts, if CCP intended something other than ownership of the site then wrecks would all be blue, and rats would be available on D-scan as soon as the mission is accepted (For missions with prespawned rats). So based on that the change in Rules of Engagement are simple and justified.

If your scanning down a War target and not using a scout to verify.. well just NO.

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.
Archibald Thistlewaite III
The Royal Society for the Prevention of Miners
#288 - 2014-01-27 14:20:48 UTC
Abdul 'aleem wrote:
Archibald Thistlewaite III wrote:
Enough with the name calling.

You are still making presumptions about ownership.

You are suggesting making people suspect just for warping to a location. That is a very bad idea.

When I first started I used to salvage mission wrecks. I would scan down a likely ship, warp to the site to find out who was in there and ask them if I could salvage. Under you idea that would give me a suspect flag. That is a bad idea.

Someone scanning for a war target they, they know the guy is in a Maelstrom (insert ship of choice) I find 3 on scan. I pick the wrong one and I go suspect.

Its a very bad idea to have people suspect flagged just for warping to a location.


You should really read the thread or at least the original post.



I have. Just so you understand The other 2 Maelstroms that are missioning are not war targets. So if I warp to them I will become a suspect under your idea.

Try reading your idea yourself you seem confused about what you are suggesting.

User of 'Bumblefck's Luscious & Luminous Mustachio Wax'
Riot Girl
You'll Cowards Don't Even Smoke Crack
#289 - 2014-01-27 14:21:35 UTC  |  Edited by: Riot Girl
The owner of a POS can be war decced so anyone can claim ownership of that space.

Oh god.
Abdul 'aleem
Sumiko Yoshida Corporation
#290 - 2014-01-27 14:21:43 UTC
Archibald Thistlewaite III wrote:
Abdul 'aleem wrote:
Archibald Thistlewaite III wrote:
Enough with the name calling.

You are still making presumptions about ownership.

You are suggesting making people suspect just for warping to a location. That is a very bad idea.

When I first started I used to salvage mission wrecks. I would scan down a likely ship, warp to the site to find out who was in there and ask them if I could salvage. Under you idea that would give me a suspect flag. That is a bad idea.

Someone scanning for a war target they, they know the guy is in a Maelstrom (insert ship of choice) I find 3 on scan. I pick the wrong one and I go suspect.

Its a very bad idea to have people suspect flagged just for warping to a location.


You should really read the thread or at least the original post.



I have. Just so you understand The other 2 Maelstroms that are missioning are not war targets. So if I warp to them I will become a suspect under your idea.

Try reading your idea yourself you seem confused about what you are suggesting.


No you are spreading false information deliberately to thread crap.

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.
Silvetica Dian
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#291 - 2014-01-27 14:22:57 UTC  |  Edited by: Silvetica Dian
Riot Girl wrote:
Why should he get a criminal flag when he hasn't committed a crime? Why should mission runners be allowed to bypass core mechanics that the rest of us are forced to abide by?


Well as these mission sites seem to be full of pirates that the invincible concord has trouble seeing into maybe all deadspace pockets should grant everyone on grid a limited engagement timer with every one else on grid?
including fleet mates.
now we have the ability to shoot potential thieves. to shoot neutral logi and also to kill out of corp fleet mates to see if they drop any nice faction /deadspace modules.
now OP's problem is solved. the neutral logi issue is addressed and people have more ways to kill mission runners.
everyone is now happy and we can end the thread.
you are all very welcome.

Money at its root is a form of rationing. When the richest 85 people have as much wealth as the poorest 3.5 billion (50% of humanity) it is clear where the source of poverty is. http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jan/20/trickle-down-economics-broken-promise-richest-85
Archibald Thistlewaite III
The Royal Society for the Prevention of Miners
#292 - 2014-01-27 14:23:12 UTC
Goldiiee wrote:
The presumption of ownership is based on all the given facts, if CCP intended something other than ownership of the site then wrecks would all be blue, and rats would be available on D-scan as soon as the mission is accepted (For missions with prespawned rats). So based on that the change in Rules of Engagement are simple and justified.

If your scanning down a War target and not using a scout to verify.. well just NO.


Your wrong, the location in space is always there. Its the rats/items/structures that are spawned for you.

So a scout has to go suspect? Same thing.

As I said before, I do think the whole mission thief gameplay needs balancing. This is not the way.

Giving people suspect flags for warping to a location is a very bad idea.

User of 'Bumblefck's Luscious & Luminous Mustachio Wax'
Archibald Thistlewaite III
The Royal Society for the Prevention of Miners
#293 - 2014-01-27 14:24:32 UTC
Abdul 'aleem wrote:
Archibald Thistlewaite III wrote:
Abdul 'aleem wrote:
Archibald Thistlewaite III wrote:
Enough with the name calling.

You are still making presumptions about ownership.

You are suggesting making people suspect just for warping to a location. That is a very bad idea.

When I first started I used to salvage mission wrecks. I would scan down a likely ship, warp to the site to find out who was in there and ask them if I could salvage. Under you idea that would give me a suspect flag. That is a bad idea.

Someone scanning for a war target they, they know the guy is in a Maelstrom (insert ship of choice) I find 3 on scan. I pick the wrong one and I go suspect.

Its a very bad idea to have people suspect flagged just for warping to a location.


You should really read the thread or at least the original post.



I have. Just so you understand The other 2 Maelstroms that are missioning are not war targets. So if I warp to them I will become a suspect under your idea.

Try reading your idea yourself you seem confused about what you are suggesting.


No you are spreading false information deliberately to thread crap.


Yet you won't acknowledge the very real problem with your idea.

User of 'Bumblefck's Luscious & Luminous Mustachio Wax'
Goldiiee
Bureau of Astronomical Anomalies
#294 - 2014-01-27 14:31:01 UTC
Archibald Thistlewaite III wrote:


Do you honestly believe warping to a location should give you a suspect flag?


Yeah I justified my position before I went to work, about 50 comments ago.

Intent; Scanning down a ship in a site is fine, warping to that site to do anything other than help clear the room is an Intent to interfere with the operation of the Mission runner. So your intent is not helpful (If it was helpfull you would ask if anyone needs help and get a fleet invite) then your intent is to steal, gank, or get aggression to overwhelm and take a bling wreck. None of these intents are good so a suspect flag for your intent is warranted.

A simple warning when hitting warp of 'You are about to enter a space designated as combat in progress your status will be changed to Suspect in 5, 4, 3, 2, 1' Simple enough to avoid and nothing new for the current mission invader as the going suspect thing is the whole Intent anyways. The problem I see anyone having with the idea is that they don't want to be 'suspect' till they choose a time that makes it impossible for the Mission runner to do anything about it. But as soon as you decided to warp to a space uninvited and ignored the warning you agreed that you are ok with being shot at, and the risk is worth the reward.

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.
Bertrand Butler
Cras es Noster
#295 - 2014-01-27 14:38:42 UTC
In the end though, I think the argument should be pretty simple. The way these missions are set, together with the game mechanics at play provide the ground for a lot of user generated content that is both desirable and interesting. Loot ninjas, gankers and market traders are not gaming the system but adapting to the mechanics in place for both personal and communal benefit. This results in content that adds an additional level of complexity to the mundane base those missions have, and also provides a ground for social interaction and player innovation.

Instead of trying to change the mechanics at hand - or simply whining, missioners have the option to adapt and provide more content, as well as become more social and involved to pursue their goals. Defense pickets, ganking squads, drop operations, EWAR and logistic neutral corps, local white mercenaries, bait & switch, intel channels, there is no limit. This is not a single player game, use that to your advantage.

If #effort# is the problem though, I think you never deserved that loot anyway...
Goldiiee
Bureau of Astronomical Anomalies
#296 - 2014-01-27 14:39:39 UTC
Archibald Thistlewaite III wrote:


Yet you won't acknowledge the very real problem with your idea.


You might be overthinking it, By design the mission location is given to the mission owner, so that location can be access only by him/her, till he/she arrives it is invisible to the entire world of EVE. So it is not that difficult to call it temporarily assigned space to xxx, and only 'fleet invited' entry will not net you a Suspect flag.

I can se this adding content, especially for things like duels, you can finally have a place to fight and the neutral RR's are suspect immediately rather than only after you get the cowardly fracker to 10% armour.

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
#297 - 2014-01-27 14:39:47 UTC
Goldiiee wrote:
Archibald Thistlewaite III wrote:


Do you honestly believe warping to a location should give you a suspect flag?


Yeah I justified my position before I went to work, about 50 comments ago.

Intent; Scanning down a ship in a site is fine, warping to that site to do anything other than help clear the room is an Intent to interfere with the operation of the Mission runner. So your intent is not helpful (If it was helpfull you would ask if anyone needs help and get a fleet invite) then your intent is to steal, gank, or get aggression to overwhelm and take a bling wreck. None of these intents are good so a suspect flag for your intent is warranted.

A simple warning when hitting warp of 'You are about to enter a space designated as combat in progress your status will be changed to Suspect in 5, 4, 3, 2, 1' Simple enough to avoid and nothing new for the current mission invader as the going suspect thing is the whole Intent anyways. The problem I see anyone having with the idea is that they don't want to be 'suspect' till they choose a time that makes it impossible for the Mission runner to do anything about it. But as soon as you decided to warp to a space uninvited and ignored the warning you agreed that you are ok with being shot at, and the risk is worth the reward.



This is exactly why the gankers/griefers/"pirates" and mission thieves are crying so much over this suggestion.

The fact that they are flailing so desperately is a good indication that it's fair and balanced.

But, fair just isn't "fair" to them.....

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.
Archibald Thistlewaite III
The Royal Society for the Prevention of Miners
#298 - 2014-01-27 14:41:32 UTC
Goldiiee wrote:
Archibald Thistlewaite III wrote:


Do you honestly believe warping to a location should give you a suspect flag?


Yeah I justified my position before I went to work, about 50 comments ago.

Intent; Scanning down a ship in a site is fine, warping to that site to do anything other than help clear the room is an Intent to interfere with the operation of the Mission runner. So your intent is not helpful (If it was helpfull you would ask if anyone needs help and get a fleet invite) then your intent is to steal, gank, or get aggression to overwhelm and take a bling wreck. None of these intents are good so a suspect flag for your intent is warranted.

A simple warning when hitting warp of 'You are about to enter a space designated as combat in progress your status will be changed to Suspect in 5, 4, 3, 2, 1' Simple enough to avoid and nothing new for the current mission invader as the going suspect thing is the whole Intent anyways. The problem I see anyone having with the idea is that they don't want to be 'suspect' till they choose a time that makes it impossible for the Mission runner to do anything about it. But as soon as you decided to warp to a space uninvited and ignored the warning you agreed that you are ok with being shot at, and the risk is worth the reward.


Ok. That answers the problem of warping to the wrong target when hunting for a war target. It still steps on the toes of salvagers.
Post 262 if it doesn't link correctly You want to give players a suspect flag for 'doing nothing wrong'.

There is also the issue of war targets hiding in mission sites. They use an alt to start a mission, fleet up the at war main and stay in the mission. Anyone who tries to find them ends up going suspect because the alt 'owns' the site.

Having people go suspect just for warping to a location is a very bad idea. There are far better solutions to make it harder for people to steal mission items.

User of 'Bumblefck's Luscious & Luminous Mustachio Wax'
Archibald Thistlewaite III
The Royal Society for the Prevention of Miners
#299 - 2014-01-27 14:43:16 UTC
Goldiiee wrote:
Archibald Thistlewaite III wrote:


Yet you won't acknowledge the very real problem with your idea.


You might be overthinking it, By design the mission location is given to the mission owner, so that location can be access only by him/her, till he/she arrives it is invisible to the entire world of EVE. So it is not that difficult to call it temporarily assigned space to xxx, and only 'fleet invited' entry will not net you a Suspect flag.

I can se this adding content, especially for things like duels, you can finally have a place to fight and the neutral RR's are suspect immediately rather than only after you get the cowardly fracker to 10% armour.


You too seem to be confusing mission location with mission items/structures. The location in space is always there, its the structures/items/rats and acceleration gates that are spawned.

User of 'Bumblefck's Luscious & Luminous Mustachio Wax'
Goldiiee
Bureau of Astronomical Anomalies
#300 - 2014-01-27 14:43:35 UTC
Bertrand Butler wrote:
In the end though, I think the argument should be pretty simple. The way these missions are set, together with the game mechanics at play provide the ground for a lot of user generated content that is both desirable and interesting. Loot ninjas, gankers and market traders are not gaming the system but adapting to the mechanics in place for both personal and communal benefit. This results in content that adds an additional level of complexity to the mundane base those missions have, and also provides a ground for social interaction and player innovation.

Instead of trying to change the mechanics at hand - or simply whining, missioners have the option to adapt and provide more content, as well as become more social and involved to pursue their goals. Defense pickets, ganking squads, drop operations, EWAR and logistic neutral corps, local white mercenaries, bait & switch, intel channels, there is no limit. This is not a single player game, use that to your advantage.

If #effort# is the problem though, I think you never deserved that loot anyway...

But isn't that forcing the game you play on others. What if the only thing they want to do is pay their subscription fee and get a few minutes destroying red dots, are you telling them Socialize or GTFO. Eventually everyone in EVE makes friends and those friends need help, ISK, defence or entertainment forcing people to make friend does not make the game better for everyone, just ask a AWOX victim if friends in EVE are a good thing.

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.