These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

EVE General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

PvE missions determined by PvP?

First post
Author
Paranoid Loyd
#61 - 2014-11-26 21:33:15 UTC  |  Edited by: Paranoid Loyd
Ralph King-Griffin wrote:
blow their alts
Ugh Keep what you do with your alts to yourself and/or choose your words more carefully.

"There is only one authority in this game, and that my friend is violence. The supreme authority upon which all other authority is derived." ISD Max Trix

Fix the Prospect!

baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#62 - 2014-11-26 21:36:22 UTC
My alt is well hidden, nobody can guess its name.
Ralph King-Griffin
New Eden Tech Support
#63 - 2014-11-26 21:36:31 UTC  |  Edited by: Ralph King-Griffin
Karl Hobb wrote:
Ralph King-Griffin wrote:
who wants to blow their alts

Shocked

Hahaha, good catch.
Big smile

baltec1 wrote:
My alt is well hidden, nobody can guess its name.

It's baltec 2 isn't it....
Doddy
Excidium.
#64 - 2014-11-26 23:04:22 UTC
Redus Taw wrote:
So I just ran a level 2 security mission when another player tried to duel me so I declined the duel and soon realized I wouldn't be able to complete the mission because the guy ran off with the "package" I needed to pick up. I do not believe the result of a PvE mission should be determined by another player. I had no problem with the player warping up to me and asking to duel, but why in a PvE mission did I lose the mission because of a player and not the environment?
If I'm playing a security mission, why can somebody interfere with the objectives of a mission? PvE has objectives, complete them and beat the mission. PvP has an objective, kill the other guy and you live.
I'm expecting one word answers like "sandbox". I understand its a sandbox, but I'm talking about specific details within the security mission being altered by a player to determine the outcome of the mission. Let me know what you guys think. Fly safe!


Sandbox. offer to buy it back for whatever you think the standing loss is worth to you.
Doddy
Excidium.
#65 - 2014-11-26 23:05:47 UTC
Cancel Align NOW wrote:
Stealing is fine. Stealing off a two month old player is not fine. Petition it. Accept the result of the petition either way and learn from the situation.


At two months old he has already learned everything there is in this simple little game, why would he need extra protection?
Cancel Align NOW
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#66 - 2014-11-26 23:34:39 UTC
Ralph King-Griffin wrote:
Veers Belvar wrote:
Cancel Align NOW wrote:


I can assure you. You HAVE had repeat customers. Fact.


proof?

Ok, hands up, who wants to blow their alts...yeah....didn't think so.


Ignorant bravado is more rewarding than tears.
Remiel Pollard
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#67 - 2014-11-26 23:36:57 UTC
Veers Belvar wrote:
Remiel Pollard wrote:


A lot of EVE is painful. Get used to it.

Also, if this was griefing, it wouldn't be allowed. Griefing in the easy kiddy games you're used to is not griefing in EVE.

For the record, 'PVE' and 'Elite' don't work in a sentence together.


CCP doesn't punish every instance of grief play (see suicide ganking for tears).


The fact that they don't take punitive measures against suicide ganking for anything tells me it's not grief play in EVE Online. Thought you would have gotten a clue by now, Veers. Clearly I underestimated your capacity for ignorance.

“Some capsuleers claim that ECM is 'dishonorable' and 'unfair'. Jam those ones first, and kill them last.” - Jirai 'Fatal' Laitanen, Pithum Nullifier Training Manual c. YC104

Cancel Align NOW
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#68 - 2014-11-26 23:44:54 UTC
Remiel Pollard wrote:
Veers Belvar wrote:
Remiel Pollard wrote:


A lot of EVE is painful. Get used to it.

Also, if this was griefing, it wouldn't be allowed. Griefing in the easy kiddy games you're used to is not griefing in EVE.

For the record, 'PVE' and 'Elite' don't work in a sentence together.


CCP doesn't punish every instance of grief play (see suicide ganking for tears).


The fact that they don't take punitive measures against suicide ganking for anything tells me it's not grief play in EVE Online. Thought you would have gotten a clue by now, Veers. Clearly I underestimated your capacity for ignorance.



But... but... if its griefing in Club Penguin it must be griefing in Eve Online. Individual games (and their communities) are not allowed to create their own terms of reference. My experience as an owner of 23 puffles gives me all the skills necessary to over-ride any other game community - especially one so degenerate as Eve Online's.
Veers Belvar
Swordmasters of New Eden
#69 - 2014-11-26 23:54:12 UTC
Remiel Pollard wrote:
Veers Belvar wrote:
Remiel Pollard wrote:


A lot of EVE is painful. Get used to it.

Also, if this was griefing, it wouldn't be allowed. Griefing in the easy kiddy games you're used to is not griefing in EVE.

For the record, 'PVE' and 'Elite' don't work in a sentence together.


CCP doesn't punish every instance of grief play (see suicide ganking for tears).


The fact that they don't take punitive measures against suicide ganking for anything tells me it's not grief play in EVE Online. Thought you would have gotten a clue by now, Veers. Clearly I underestimated your capacity for ignorance.


Not all grief punishable by CCP. You can do things just to **** people off and be a jerk, and have it not be against the EULA. Running a margin trading scam to cheat a new player out of his first 500 mil is a great example. Ditto with blowing up empty ships for tears.
Remiel Pollard
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#70 - 2014-11-27 00:06:51 UTC  |  Edited by: Remiel Pollard
Veers Belvar wrote:
Remiel Pollard wrote:
Veers Belvar wrote:
Remiel Pollard wrote:


A lot of EVE is painful. Get used to it.

Also, if this was griefing, it wouldn't be allowed. Griefing in the easy kiddy games you're used to is not griefing in EVE.

For the record, 'PVE' and 'Elite' don't work in a sentence together.


CCP doesn't punish every instance of grief play (see suicide ganking for tears).


The fact that they don't take punitive measures against suicide ganking for anything tells me it's not grief play in EVE Online. Thought you would have gotten a clue by now, Veers. Clearly I underestimated your capacity for ignorance.


You can do things just to **** people off and be a jerk, and have it not be against the EULA.


Therefore, not griefing. Catching on yet? End of the day, the real scum in the game are the ones attaching moral values to pixels and gameplay. Literally #firstworldproblems. You want to tackle moral dilemmas? Learn to separate fantasy from reality and go try a real one. In the meantime, griefing in EVE is still not the same thing as griefing elsewhere.

TL;DR - EVE is a sandbox. By virtue of that, it is our developer-given right to do things just for the sake of being a jerk. #Dealwithit

“Some capsuleers claim that ECM is 'dishonorable' and 'unfair'. Jam those ones first, and kill them last.” - Jirai 'Fatal' Laitanen, Pithum Nullifier Training Manual c. YC104

Veers Belvar
Swordmasters of New Eden
#71 - 2014-11-27 00:23:25 UTC
Remiel Pollard wrote:
Veers Belvar wrote:
Remiel Pollard wrote:
Veers Belvar wrote:
Remiel Pollard wrote:


A lot of EVE is painful. Get used to it.

Also, if this was griefing, it wouldn't be allowed. Griefing in the easy kiddy games you're used to is not griefing in EVE.

For the record, 'PVE' and 'Elite' don't work in a sentence together.


CCP doesn't punish every instance of grief play (see suicide ganking for tears).


The fact that they don't take punitive measures against suicide ganking for anything tells me it's not grief play in EVE Online. Thought you would have gotten a clue by now, Veers. Clearly I underestimated your capacity for ignorance.


You can do things just to **** people off and be a jerk, and have it not be against the EULA.


Therefore, not griefing. Catching on yet? End of the day, the real scum in the game are the ones attaching moral values to pixels and gameplay. Literally #firstworldproblems. You want to tackle moral dilemmas? Learn to separate fantasy from reality and go try a real one. In the meantime, griefing in EVE is still not the same thing as griefing elsewhere.

TL;DR - EVE is a sandbox. By virtue of that, it is our developer-given right to do things just for the sake of being a jerk. #Dealwithit


I do deal with it...by calling out the griefers like you on the forums. It's quite cathartic...and as usual your emotional control is failing. That you have a right to do something doesn't make it the right thing to do, and make you any less of a bad person for doing it.
Sabriz Adoudel
Move along there is nothing here
#72 - 2014-11-27 00:28:59 UTC
OP - be aware that CCP policy is to only reset missions failed due to player interference if the mission is one of the training ones, including the Sisters epic arc, and anyone that tells you otherwise is trolling you.

As someone that has been both a mission runner and a mission invader, it's my experience that you will have someone attempt to interact with you in about 2-3% of highsec missions, and they will be able to ransom a needed completion item on about 5-10% of those occasions. How you deal with this situation is up to you. Be aware that your rival *wants* you to attack them and has prepared for it, but you may be able to counter them if you are cunning.

Or, you may try to counter them, lose the fight, and have some fun anyway.

I support the New Order and CODE. alliance. www.minerbumping.com

Herzog Wolfhammer
Sigma Special Tactics Group
#73 - 2014-11-27 00:35:18 UTC
I can see this thread going in the usual direction.

But how about we fancy something else. Perhaps it's time for missions specifically designed to be messed with by other players. Like missions that are given to two players at once and in some manner as "who gets to something/there/from somewhere first" ?

Maybe even factionalize the matter. In highsec Caldari space for example you get missions that for the most part would entail fighting the Guristas. Well how about players who prefer to be on the side of Guristas getting the "same" mission from a Guristas agent in such manner that you have two NPC agents pitting players head to head?

Yeah I know what the complaints would be "Hurr durr bitter vets will bring in 50 remote reps hurr durr" but we have already seen missions exert arbitrary controls on the gates so the mechanics to ensure against the game giving one player a gangfest over another would not be a far departure from the present system.

Rather than shy away from the prospect of this thread, maybe it's time to incorporate the PVP element in it and allow pirate sympathizers have their fun too.


Just an idea that I'm sure will be shot down or ignored because spergers gonna sperg (and hate change).

Bring back DEEEEP Space!

Cancel Align NOW
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#74 - 2014-11-27 00:36:19 UTC
Veers Belvar wrote:


I do deal with it...by calling out the griefers like you on the forums. It's quite cathartic...and as usual your emotional control is failing. That you have a right to do something doesn't make it the right thing to do, and make you any less of a bad person for doing it.


According to that logic Bryan Cranston is a terrible person in real life.
Omar Alharazaad
New Eden Tech Support
#75 - 2014-11-27 00:37:27 UTC
So, serious question. Is it a conscious choice you make to verbally drag your arse across every interesting discussion on the forums? Or are you just compelled beyond your means of control to try and make every thread worth posting in about you?

You keep using the word griefer in the context of what is considered grief play in other games. EVE has a different set of standards for grief play. Even the wikipedia entry of 'griefer' has an addendum (almost all the way to the bottom) mentioning this.

I do not understand how being wrong can be cathartic, but to each their own. Keep on putting that extra chromosome to it's fullest use.

Come hell or high water, this sick world will know I was here.

Hasikan Miallok
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#76 - 2014-11-27 00:43:44 UTC  |  Edited by: Hasikan Miallok
In before the thread move to Missions and Complexes :D

Sabriz Adoudel wrote:
If you successfully complete a level 4 mission for the Sisters of EVE, you might get 1m ISK and 8000 LP (worth about 12m-16m ISK today).


but .. SOE LP is protected by divine intervention and their ISK/LP ratio is immutable and indestructible :D

btw - you can get almost 15,000 SOE LP at Lanngisi for some Burner missions which is enough for a 40 mill probe in just one mission.

Herzog Wolfhammer wrote:

Perhaps it's time for missions specifically designed to be messed with by other players. Like missions that are given to two players at once and in some manner as "who gets to something/there/from somewhere first" ?


ummhh ... like in incursions ???
Cancel Align NOW
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#77 - 2014-11-27 00:43:59 UTC
Herzog Wolfhammer wrote:
I can see this thread going in the usual direction.

But how about we fancy something else. Perhaps it's time for missions specifically designed to be messed with by other players. Like missions that are given to two players at once and in some manner as "who gets to something/there/from somewhere first" ?

Maybe even factionalize the matter. In highsec Caldari space for example you get missions that for the most part would entail fighting the Guristas. Well how about players who prefer to be on the side of Guristas getting the "same" mission from a Guristas agent in such manner that you have two NPC agents pitting players head to head?

Yeah I know what the complaints would be "Hurr durr bitter vets will bring in 50 remote reps hurr durr" but we have already seen missions exert arbitrary controls on the gates so the mechanics to ensure against the game giving one player a gangfest over another would not be a far departure from the present system.

Rather than shy away from the prospect of this thread, maybe it's time to incorporate the PVP element in it and allow pirate sympathizers have their fun too.


Just an idea that I'm sure will be shot down or ignored because spergers gonna sperg (and hate change).


I like the idea of missions that intentionally pit player vs player. I think it is an avenue that could create some nice emergent game play.

There are a couple of things which make me uncomfortable with the concept:
1. The usual high sec is not safe enough crowd will push to remove players being able to enter other players "non pvp" missions.
2. Off grid boosters have concord "protection" in high sec.
3. If this concept attracts the interest of new players it needs very careful balancing. Something CCP has struggled with in the past. CCP do not need a system where I can farm 30-40 new players endlessly for ingame rewards.
Hasikan Miallok
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#78 - 2014-11-27 00:46:16 UTC
Cancel Align NOW wrote:
Herzog Wolfhammer wrote:
I can see this thread going in the usual direction.

But how about we fancy something else. Perhaps it's time for missions specifically designed to be messed with by other players. Like missions that are given to two players at once and in some manner as "who gets to something/there/from somewhere first" ?

Maybe even factionalize the matter. In highsec Caldari space for example you get missions that for the most part would entail fighting the Guristas. Well how about players who prefer to be on the side of Guristas getting the "same" mission from a Guristas agent in such manner that you have two NPC agents pitting players head to head?

Yeah I know what the complaints would be "Hurr durr bitter vets will bring in 50 remote reps hurr durr" but we have already seen missions exert arbitrary controls on the gates so the mechanics to ensure against the game giving one player a gangfest over another would not be a far departure from the present system.

Rather than shy away from the prospect of this thread, maybe it's time to incorporate the PVP element in it and allow pirate sympathizers have their fun too.


Just an idea that I'm sure will be shot down or ignored because spergers gonna sperg (and hate change).


I like the idea of missions that intentionally pit player vs player. I think it is an avenue that could create some nice emergent game play.

There are a couple of things which make me uncomfortable with the concept:
1. The usual high sec is not safe enough crowd will push to remove players being able to enter other players "non pvp" missions.
2. Off grid boosters have concord "protection" in high sec.
3. If this concept attracts the interest of new players it needs very careful balancing. Something CCP has struggled with in the past. CCP do not need a system where I can farm 30-40 new players endlessly for ingame rewards.


yeah incursions already have this mechanic.

Incursions fleets are not renowned for shooting at each other.
Remiel Pollard
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#79 - 2014-11-27 00:48:56 UTC  |  Edited by: Remiel Pollard
Veers Belvar wrote:


I do deal with it...by calling out the griefers like you on the forums. It's quite cathartic...and as usual your emotional control is failing. That you have a right to do something doesn't make it the right thing to do, and make you any less of a bad person for doing it.


But I've already explained why we're not griefers. By virtue of me being logged on right now, I've never been found guilty of griefing by the people that matter. Since you don't matter, you aren't actually calling out anything. You remind me of the angry street preacher with a megaphone claiming the end is nigh and we're all doomed sinners because we don't behave the way you think we should. It is simultaneously cringeworthy and pathetic.

For the record, I live in lowsec, and I'll guarantee you I've done more good for new players to this game in just the past week then you have done since you created your account. I will bet my substantial isk reserves on it, both liquid and otherwise, and biomass if I'm wrong. What would you bet?

“Some capsuleers claim that ECM is 'dishonorable' and 'unfair'. Jam those ones first, and kill them last.” - Jirai 'Fatal' Laitanen, Pithum Nullifier Training Manual c. YC104

Sabriz Adoudel
Move along there is nothing here
#80 - 2014-11-27 00:54:40 UTC
OP's questions have been comprehensively answered and this thread is getting totally off topic.

The ideas (including some I think are good) should get sent to the Features and Ideas section of the forums.

I support the New Order and CODE. alliance. www.minerbumping.com