These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Mag's
Azn Empire
#361 - 2014-01-27 19:59:00 UTC
So answer the question.

Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
Abdul 'aleem
Sumiko Yoshida Corporation
#362 - 2014-01-27 20:02:05 UTC
You know Jonas, "pirates" can easily break forum rules and post using alts and all other sorts of lies and deception, right?

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.
Estella Osoka
Cranky Bitches Who PMS
#363 - 2014-01-27 20:49:42 UTC
There is no deception here. The proposal is flawed. Accept it, and figure something else out.

Seriously, PVPers would love your proposal as it would give them another way to possibly inflict unwanted PVP onto hisec carebears.
Abdul 'aleem
Sumiko Yoshida Corporation
#364 - 2014-01-27 21:04:50 UTC  |  Edited by: Abdul 'aleem
Estella Osoka wrote:
There is no deception here. The proposal is flawed. Accept it, and figure something else out.

Seriously, PVPers would love your proposal as it would give them another way to possibly inflict unwanted PVP onto hisec carebears.




to the readers:

SHOCKER! "Pirate" says "there is no deception here."

WoW! that must be an EvE first and you saw it here!

lol

edit:

The first obvious lie makes the second an obvious lie as well. Lies, deception, misinformation... total desperation.

oh and fear mongering...

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.
Bertrand Butler
Cras es Noster
#365 - 2014-01-27 21:32:28 UTC
Will you answer the question eventually Abdul 'aleem?

Abdul 'aleem
Sumiko Yoshida Corporation
#366 - 2014-01-27 21:36:55 UTC  |  Edited by: Abdul 'aleem
Bertrand Butler wrote:
Will you answer the question eventually Abdul 'aleem?




It's not even a question man. It's just a propaganda push.

The fact that he/she lies openly about "there's no deception here" disqualifies everything else she is saying.

If people can't clearly see that and actually believe anything that she has said up to now...

At that point I cannot help them, I am afraid.

They are too far gone.

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
#367 - 2014-01-27 21:53:39 UTC
Guys, please.

Abdul is clearly just a garden variety troll. Stop feeding him.

He isn't going to answer any questions about his proposal, because his proposal actively facilitates the exact type of abuse being described. It would result in nothing but trouble and increased problems for mission runners in several ways, none of which he will accept or claim to understand.

He will continue to pretend like he is the only one capable of understanding his 'proofs' despite the fact that they have absolutely nothing to do with the concept of ownership in EVE. No argument will sway him, and he will keep parroting the tired and clearly false dogma that has pushed this thread to 20+ pages. The guy that argues for separating all high sec regions of each faction with low sec and killing half of all commerce in the game is more reasonable and well meaning.

He will continue to discount any suggestion that actually addresses his claimed problem, because stealing mission objectives isn't his real concern. He wants to troll, and that's about it. Anything from mission resets to a simply making mission objectives in battleship class missions take up 500m3+ cargo space would solve every stated problem he has, but he does not want to discuss that, because it would solve his 'problem' and he would be without a source of troll-fodder.

You cannot, under any circumstances, engage him in any sort of meaningful discussion on the subject, because as soon as your logic starts to contradict his trolling he will back out and resort to either tired dogmatic arguments that have nothing to do with the topic under discussion, or name calling.

This thread has been done from about 3 posts in. Please just let it die the agonizing death it deserves.
Abdul 'aleem
Sumiko Yoshida Corporation
#368 - 2014-01-27 21:55:39 UTC  |  Edited by: Abdul 'aleem
Mike Voidstar wrote:
Guys, please.

Abdul is clearly just a garden variety troll. Stop feeding him.

He isn't going to answer any questions about his proposal, because his proposal actively facilitates the exact type of abuse being described. It would result in nothing but trouble and increased problems for mission runners in several ways, none of which he will accept or claim to understand.

He will continue to pretend like he is the only one capable of understanding his 'proofs' despite the fact that they have absolutely nothing to do with the concept of ownership in EVE. No argument will sway him, and he will keep parroting the tired and clearly false dogma that has pushed this thread to 20+ pages. The guy that argues for separating all high sec regions of each faction with low sec and killing half of all commerce in the game is more reasonable and well meaning.

He will continue to discount any suggestion that actually addresses his claimed problem, because stealing mission objectives isn't his real concern. He wants to troll, and that's about it. Anything from mission resets to a simply making mission objectives in battleship class missions take up 500m3+ cargo space would solve every stated problem he has, but he does not want to discuss that, because it would solve his 'problem' and he would be without a source of troll-fodder.

You cannot, under any circumstances, engage him in any sort of meaningful discussion on the subject, because as soon as your logic starts to contradict his trolling he will back out and resort to either tired dogmatic arguments that have nothing to do with the topic under discussion, or name calling.

This thread has been done from about 3 posts in. Please just let it die the agonizing death it deserves.


Hey Mike o/

WB

Sorry to see that you haven't learned to support your opinions yet Sad

No hard feelings though. A mod will probably just delete your personal attacks out at some point like they did before.

I still love you though.. in a manly way

Edit:

Hope you got my mail apologizing for any of my comments that you took personally. Again, no hard feelings.

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.
Estella Osoka
Cranky Bitches Who PMS
#369 - 2014-01-27 22:40:39 UTC
Wow. I'm an alt now. Obviously you know nothing about this game. Search me on EVE Killboards or the Battleclinic killboards and you will find this is not an alt.

Your just mad that your proposal was easily found to be flawed.
Abdul 'aleem
Sumiko Yoshida Corporation
#370 - 2014-01-27 22:43:11 UTC  |  Edited by: Abdul 'aleem
Estella Osoka wrote:
Wow. I'm an alt now. Obviously you know nothing about this game. Search me on EVE Killboards or the Battleclinic killboards and you will find this is not an alt.

Your just mad that your proposal was easily found to be flawed.


lol

How can I get mad when players with over 20,000 likes give their endorsement for a proposal that I posted?

Do you know how long they must have been playing and how much insight and experience they must have?

And, I still got to see the day where gankers/griefers/"pirates" and thieves argued out of fear of being a legal target because they could now get killed for griefing.

Good times.

And to Nerf Burger, the actual victim whose case I was arguing to remedy, I hope you feel that I did you justice in advancing your cause.

CCP it's all you now. I hope you have your waders on when you get around to cleaning up this thread because the crappers were here in force.

Cheers all o7

P.S. Is it appropriate to post the idea for a delusional dark jedi Princess Achaja bobble-head USB hub in this same forum? Because I really want one now!

I want one wearing a straight jacket and screaming "the strong and prepared shall still take from the weak and lazy!!!!!!!!!!" lol

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.
ISD Ezwal
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
ISD Alliance
#371 - 2014-01-27 23:32:15 UTC
Abdul 'aleem wrote:
..."pirates" can easily break forum rules...
Everybody can break the forum rules. Everybody should however consider the possible consequences when doing so.*)
In that light I politely request everyone to not break the forum rules, to stay on topic and above all polite!


*)The wrath of CCL bearing down on you. Among other things.

ISD Ezwal Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs)
Abdul 'aleem
Sumiko Yoshida Corporation
#372 - 2014-01-27 23:53:49 UTC  |  Edited by: Abdul 'aleem
The suprise revealed!!!!!!! Twisted

For you Jonas. And for Bertrand.

The secret is that there's no secret. It was already discussed, BEFORE the false claims were made.



Estella Osoka wrote:
Let's see if I can make this very simple. People who scan down a mission runner and warp to the mission become suspect per Abdul's proposal. Going by this, that means groups of people can do this and use the mission site as defacto PVP arenas. They will obviously want to get the mission rats out of the way as they will just provide a unwanted distraction. In so doing that will cause mission triggers to effed up, and if there is a mission specific rat that drops a completion item; then the loot will be owned by the person who got the final blow on the rat. If that person is not the person running the mission, then he has to run the risk of stealing the loot and becoming suspect himself.

Also, what if the person running the missions pretends to cry for support in local and several people respond? What if said person invites them to fleet, and then said person kicks them from fleet while they are in warp to the mission site? Will they become suspect per this proposal? Let's say they arrive on field and are suspect. They find to their dismay when they arrive that the mission runner is actually a PVPer who tricked them into the coming, and he has support. PVP ensues.

Congratulations you have just created several ways to ruin the missioning experience!



Posted way back on page 12 post #235


Abdul 'aleem wrote:
Riot Girl wrote:
No one is scared of your proposed change. It hurts mission runners a lot more than it hurts gankers and thieves.





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.




For clarity:

1) No missioner is ever forced to invite anyone into their mission site.

And the suspect flag for mission invasion is valid everywhere.

Everyone can shoot a mission invader legally outside of the mission owners pocket without the missioner being involved.

2) Gankers can mission invade currently and make it a "war zone" if they choose to. A missioner has no valid legal options right now if they choose to invade. Your fear is basically the same type of risk will continue. It will.

However, the proposed suspect flag for mission invasion doesn't necessarily increase the "war zone" risk and it doesn't necessarily decrease it. Because the deciding factor is the intention of the griefer. (ie it is 100% subject to the gankers/griefers choice to do it exclusive of any flag status that is generated. If they are going to do it, they will do it in any case or state, suspect flag or not; before or after this suggestion is implemented).

Before or after this suggestion is implemented, ganker/griefer players have the same ability to get into the pocket if they wish and "make it a defacto PvP Arena."

Again: a suspect flag for trespassing doesn't make it any easier or harder for grifers to get into a mission pocket and start fighting if that is what they choose to do.

The claim that this suggestion will automatically increase griefer activity in every existing mission pocket has not been proven in any way, and cannot because it is 100% dependent on player choice not suspect status. Is is an opinion only and not even with stated proof. In other words, it's a guess that could turn out to be false just as much as it could turn out to be true.

But what has been proven, is there are more benefits (listed in the original post) that the missioner and his allies will have after a suspect flag is implemented than exist right now. (mainly you and your allies would all have the option to legally kill the invaders if you wanted to).

Right now a missioner has little to no legal options to counter mission invasion.

This suggestion changes that.


See ya all o7 P

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
#373 - 2014-01-27 23:57:58 UTC  |  Edited by: Abdul 'aleem
double post sorry

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.
Daichi Yamato
Jabbersnarks and Wonderglass
#374 - 2014-01-28 00:49:12 UTC
Abdul 'aleem wrote:

Many others disagree with you but thanks for your opinion.


looks like more ppl disagree with you

Abdul 'aleem wrote:

Thanks again Daichi Yamato (known ganker/griefer/"pirate" and/or thief)!


if i was actually a known ganker/griefer/pirate and/or thief, wouldnt u be able to tell everyone which of the mentioned i was without using such indeterminate terminology as 'and/or'??

EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided"

Daichi Yamato's version of structure based decs
Abdul 'aleem
Sumiko Yoshida Corporation
#375 - 2014-01-28 00:51:11 UTC  |  Edited by: Abdul 'aleem
Daichi Yamato wrote:
Abdul 'aleem wrote:

Many others disagree with you but thanks for your opinion.


looks like more ppl disagree with you

Abdul 'aleem wrote:

Thanks again Daichi Yamato (suspected*** ganker/griefer/"pirate" and/or thief)!


if i was actually a known ganker/griefer/pirate and/or thief, wouldnt u be able to tell everyone which of the mentioned i was without using such indeterminate terminology as 'and/or'??


I didn't think that you would be offended by the term. being corrected.

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
#376 - 2014-01-28 00:58:03 UTC  |  Edited by: Abdul 'aleem
Bertrand Butler wrote:


The reason ppl are criticizing your feature request is not because they are scared. Its because it makes no sense really, and it promotes a detrimental mentality to the most important aspects of this game. Player innovation and interaction.


My repsonse to the false claim that a suspect flag for trespassing would automatically turn all mission pockets into "defacto PvP arenas" has been posted above (post #434).

If you are referring to something else, just identify the concern and the basis of it.

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
#377 - 2014-01-28 01:07:27 UTC
Abdul 'aleem wrote:
Again: a suspect flag for trespassing doesn't make it any easier or harder for grifers to get into a mission pocket and start fighting if that is what they choose to do.

Yes it does.

Quote:
The claim that this suggestion will automatically increase griefer activity in every existing mission pocket has not been proven in any way, and cannot because it is 100% dependent on player choice not suspect status.

So when will the 'vigilantes' come to your aid? When you call for help or whenever they feel like it (i.e probing down the suspect as soon as they go yellow blinky in local)?

Oh god.
Abdul 'aleem
Sumiko Yoshida Corporation
#378 - 2014-01-28 01:10:23 UTC  |  Edited by: Abdul 'aleem
Vincent Athena wrote:


So all it does is make the thief risk a bit more.



yes. as many people have posted, it will balance the risk/reward equation between missioner and invaders. as listed in the OP.

Vincent Athena wrote:


Also many griefers will purposely get themselves fagged in hopes you will shoot them. This proposal will just give them yet another way to do it.



yes. it will create more legal counter-play options to the act of mission invasion than currently exist as stated in the OP.


Vincent Athena wrote:


Thief warps in with a PvP fit ship. You can:

a) shoot first, get blown up and have your item stolen
b) not shoot and get your item stolen.

The only reason they use cheap ships now is because that's all that's needed.

Better would be to change the missions so there was a better way to recover from a failed mission.


There are more legal options that are made available to the missioner than just the ones you listed. They are not all exclusive to the missioner and they are listed in the OP.

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.
Taranogas 3rd
Doomheim
#379 - 2014-01-28 01:10:41 UTC
if a GM hadn't reverted that Item then I would disagree with you Abdul and just deal with it, but since that's not the case then they acknowledge that it's something wrong, on the other hand there is new mobile item: mobile scan inhibitor coming in Rubicon 1.1 tomorrow's patch, this should prove useful in particular for these kind of missions.
Abdul 'aleem
Sumiko Yoshida Corporation
#380 - 2014-01-28 01:13:10 UTC  |  Edited by: Abdul 'aleem
Taranogas 3rd wrote:
if a GM hadn't reverted that Item then I would disagree with you Abdul and just deal with it, but since that's not the case then they acknowledge that it's something wrong, on the other hand there is new mobile item: mobile scan inhibitor coming in Rubicon 1.1 tomorrow's patch, this should prove useful in particular for these kind of missions.



Thanks for supporting the opinion that a problem exists.

I will def check that out.

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.