These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Abdul 'aleem
Sumiko Yoshida Corporation
#201 - 2014-01-27 08:09:11 UTC  |  Edited by: Abdul 'aleem
Goldiiee wrote:
Riot Girl.
What I am getting is you don't like the idea because it flags suspects before they commit a crime; In your opinion.

But it is the opinion of everyone else that entering a site with the intent of 'taking it' (BTW; implies ownership other than your own) is in itself a criminal or 'Suspect' worthy act, we are only asking that the appropriate flag be applied to the appropriate action, nothing more.


For clarity:

"crime" is the RL term describing the act.

"Suspicious" is the suggested in-game label for mission invasion/trespassing.

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
#202 - 2014-01-27 08:11:36 UTC
Abdul 'aleem wrote:
Goldiiee wrote:
Riot Girl.
What I am getting is you don't like the idea because it flags suspects before they commit a crime; In your opinion.

But it is the opinion of everyone else that entering a site with the intent of 'taking it' (BTW; implies ownership other than your own) is in itself a criminal or 'Suspect' worthy act, we are only asking that the appropriate flag be applied to the appropriate action, nothing more.



I believe "criminal" is the RL term for clarity.

"Suspicious" is the suggested in-game label for mission invasion/trespassing.

Yeah trying to relate in game terms as appropriate. But in reality all players,especially missioners, are genocidal maniacs -10 with just about every pirate faction is the proof. Big smile

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.
Riot Girl
You'll Cowards Don't Even Smoke Crack
#203 - 2014-01-27 08:13:07 UTC
Goldiiee wrote:
I am not sure why you would worry from he sounds of your arguments you have it set to yellow or red permanently.

Not worried, just pointing it out.

Quote:
As a public spawn site you should know these (DED complexes)are supposed to be contested

Yeah, so why compare your idea, which is designed to avoid as much player interaction as possible.

Quote:
Now you're just being obstinate, with no real argument you're tilting at windmills.

I'm not. Explain to me how your idea protects mission runners. It does nothing like that.

Quote:
Committing a crime is about Intent as well as the Act, Intent to kill is just as easy to prosecute as murder, you buy a gun, ammo, and black ski mask, show up at the guys house but are foiled by his yappy Chihuahua. Your still going to go to jail.
Yeah, except this is a video game... set in a galaxy with very different rules and legal requirements than our own. While showing up to someone's house with a gun does imply an intent to commit a crime, in Eve, it's pretty standard fare to show up to someone's house carrying a gun. Or 8.

Oh god.
Abdul 'aleem
Sumiko Yoshida Corporation
#204 - 2014-01-27 08:14:42 UTC
Goldiiee wrote:
Riot Girl wrote:
Stop trying to make me read garbage I've already read to avoid answering questions. You've avoided pretty much every argument I've presented to you and you've resorted to immature tactics to stubbornly defend your horrible idea. Why don't you just drop it already?

This is because you haven't presented any argument other than, 'This screws my game play and I don't like it!'



This is quite an accurate assessment.

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
#205 - 2014-01-27 08:17:00 UTC
Goldiiee wrote:
Riot Girl.
What I am getting is you don't like the idea because it flags suspects before they commit a crime; In your opinion.

But it is the opinion of everyone else that entering a site with the intent of 'taking it' (BTW; implies ownership other than your own) is in itself a criminal or 'Suspect' worthy act, we are only asking that the appropriate flag be applied to the appropriate action, nothing more.



You do understand all of what's written here, Princess Achaja... I mean "Riot Girl"... 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.
Riot Girl
You'll Cowards Don't Even Smoke Crack
#206 - 2014-01-27 08:17:56 UTC
Goldiiee wrote:
Riot Girl.
What I am getting is you don't like the idea because it flags suspects before they commit a crime; In your opinion.

But it is the opinion of everyone else that entering a site with the intent of 'taking it' (BTW; implies ownership other than your own) is in itself a criminal or 'Suspect' worthy act, we are only asking that the appropriate flag be applied to the appropriate action, nothing more.

What if I don't want the site? What if I claim ownership of the whole system and everything in it. I'm allowed to do that and what you're proposing is an idea to limit my ability to do that. To me, you are the suspect, and you should be flagged for combat because you are trespassing on my property. I don't care about that though because if I wanted you gone, I'd suicide gank you anyway instead of crying to CCP about mission runners stealing all my NPC rats.

Oh god.
Riot Girl
You'll Cowards Don't Even Smoke Crack
#207 - 2014-01-27 08:21:56 UTC
Abdul 'aleem wrote:
Goldiiee wrote:
Riot Girl wrote:
Stop trying to make me read garbage I've already read to avoid answering questions. You've avoided pretty much every argument I've presented to you and you've resorted to immature tactics to stubbornly defend your horrible idea. Why don't you just drop it already?

This is because you haven't presented any argument other than, 'This screws my game play and I don't like it!'



This is quite an accurate assessment.

It's not. I've made a number of arguments you haven't been able to contest. The main one being that the game already provides you with every tool you need to succeed in this situation. There are a number of things you can do and you refuse to do the work or the planning to get the reward you want, so you don't deserve it.

Oh god.
Goldiiee
Bureau of Astronomical Anomalies
#208 - 2014-01-27 08:23:03 UTC
Riot Girl wrote:
Goldiiee wrote:
Riot Girl.
What I am getting is you don't like the idea because it flags suspects before they commit a crime; In your opinion.

But it is the opinion of everyone else that entering a site with the intent of 'taking it' (BTW; implies ownership other than your own) is in itself a criminal or 'Suspect' worthy act, we are only asking that the appropriate flag be applied to the appropriate action, nothing more.

What if I don't want the site? What if I claim ownership of the whole system and everything in it. I'm allowed to do that and what you're proposing is an idea to limit my ability to do that. To me, you are the suspect, and you should be flagged for combat because you are trespassing on my property. I don't care about that though because if I wanted you gone, I'd suicide gank you anyway instead of crying to CCP about mission runners stealing all my NPC rats.

That is already available to you, go to Nul find a system and claim SOV.

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
#209 - 2014-01-27 08:27:36 UTC  |  Edited by: Abdul 'aleem
Ultimately, there is no reason that Concord should offer protection to a mission invader.

When a mission invader chooses to warp into another player's mission pocket, they are performing a "suspicious" act.

They should be suspect flagged at warp in and be a valid target immediately.

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
#210 - 2014-01-27 08:28:03 UTC
Goldiiee wrote:
That is already available to you, go to Nul find a system and claim SOV.

Don't need to claim sov. As you said, the option is already available to me wherever I go.

Oh god.
Riot Girl
You'll Cowards Don't Even Smoke Crack
#211 - 2014-01-27 08:31:27 UTC
Abdul 'aleem wrote:
When a mission invader chooses to warp into another player's mission pocket, they are performing a "suspicious" act.

Suspect flags aren't given for looking suspicious...

Oh god.
Goldiiee
Bureau of Astronomical Anomalies
#212 - 2014-01-27 08:32:14 UTC
Riot Girl wrote:
Goldiiee wrote:
That is already available to you, go to Nul find a system and claim SOV.

Don't need to claim sov. As you said, the option is already available to me wherever I go.

And that style of game play is your right. So the appropriate Flag and response should be the right of everyone else not interested in your particular form of enjoyment. Conversely everyone else should have the right and ability to stop you.

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
#213 - 2014-01-27 08:33:25 UTC
Riot Girl wrote:
Abdul 'aleem wrote:
When a mission invader chooses to warp into another player's mission pocket, they are performing a "suspicious" act.

Suspect flags aren't given for looking suspicious...


Funny I thought there were, therefore the whole 'Suspected' part of 'Suspect'

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.
Riot Girl
You'll Cowards Don't Even Smoke Crack
#214 - 2014-01-27 08:33:57 UTC  |  Edited by: Riot Girl
Goldiiee wrote:
Conversely everyone else should have the right and ability to stop you.

They do. So what's the problem?

Goldiiee wrote:
Funny I thought there were, therefore the whole 'Suspected' part of 'Suspect'

That would partially explain why your arguments are flawed.

Oh god.
Abdul 'aleem
Sumiko Yoshida Corporation
#215 - 2014-01-27 08:41:47 UTC  |  Edited by: Abdul 'aleem
Abdul 'aleem wrote:
Hunter Arngrahm wrote:
Riot Girl wrote:
For clarification, my point is that I resent having to explain things you should be able to figure out on your own.


And my point was you're just wasting people's time. Which you've proven. If you had any real argument or contribution you'd be providing it, and you aren't.


Yes this was true several pages ago for most objections.

From the start for some.




Re-posted because it is still very accurate.

Edit: and that was page 5 btw

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
#216 - 2014-01-27 08:46:20 UTC
My argument is that CCP shouldn't pander to the selfish desires of carebears who want everything handed to them on a platter. It's bad for the overall quality of the game and the experience it offers, which is unique in the world of MMOs.

Oh god.
Goldiiee
Bureau of Astronomical Anomalies
#217 - 2014-01-27 08:50:03 UTC
Riot Girl wrote:
Goldiiee wrote:
Conversely everyone else should have the right and ability to stop you.

They do. So what's the problem?

Goldiiee wrote:
Funny I thought there were, therefore the whole 'Suspected' part of 'Suspect'

That would partially explain why your arguments are flawed.

That's rich coming from you. Your argument? As of yet Whaaa is not applicable. You offer nothing but quip replies and vague Ad Hominem retorts, with no substance or direction just a desire to derail a solid rebalancing request of Rules of engagement for contested private mission loot.

You have yet to give a reason why an intruder to a mission site not owned by you (Your admission; ''take it'') should not earn a Suspect flag.

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
#218 - 2014-01-27 08:53:00 UTC
Riot Girl wrote:
My argument is that CCP shouldn't pander to the selfish desires of carebears who want everything handed to them on a platter. It's bad for the overall quality of the game and the experience it offers, which is unique in the world of MMOs.

So by that standard CCP should redefine the ROE for mission sites rather than pander to the lowest form of criminal, 'extortionist' that regardless of you prolific post make up considerably less total revenue than the 'Carebear' quotient of the EVE online populous.

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.
Riot Girl
You'll Cowards Don't Even Smoke Crack
#219 - 2014-01-27 08:58:40 UTC  |  Edited by: Riot Girl
Quote:
That would partially explain why your arguments are flawed.

Quote:
That's rich coming from you. Your argument? As of yet Whaaa is not applicable. You offer nothing but quip replies and vague Ad Hominem retorts, with no substance or direction just a desire to derail a solid rebalancing request of Rules of engagement for contested private mission loot.

You have yet to give a reason why an intruder to a mission site not owned by you (Your admission; ''take it'') should not earn a Suspect flag.

I've provided plenty of strong arguments. You still haven't explained what is preventing you from being able to complete the mission successfully, other than your own inability to do so (despite having every tool needed).

Oh god.
Abdul 'aleem
Sumiko Yoshida Corporation
#220 - 2014-01-27 08:59:54 UTC  |  Edited by: Abdul 'aleem
You are obviously on tilt. Edit your post so the quotes are set straight.

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.