Player Features and Ideas Discussion

You are spamming a dead issue to promote fear because you don't have a legitimate objection based on facts.

The false claim that this suggestion would by default automatically make every mission pocket a "PvP arena" has been countered in post #434 on page 22.

This suggestion gives every missioner legal options to protect against mission invaders that do not currently exist in-game.

Right now, missioners can not legally do anything to counter mission invasion, which allows gankers/griefers free reign in those spaces.

In fact, right now the gankers/griefers can mess with missioner much easily than if they had a suspect flag at warp and they are currently protected by Concord while they trespass/grief, at the expense of the missioner.

If this suggested flag implemented, missioner would no longer get killed



12. Spamming is prohibited.

Spam is defined as the repetitive posting of the same topic or nonsensical post that has no substance and is often designed to annoy other forum users. This can include the words “first”, “go back to 'insert other game name'" and other such posts that contribute no value to forum discussion. Spamming also includes the posting of ASCII art within a forum post.

Thanks for the support.

Re-read the intentions of the suggestion in the original post. The suggestion does in fact accomplish all of them.


For clarity:


The intention of this change is to:

1) allow the missioner options for counter-play and defense of assets that currently do not exist, making it possible to prevent the crime as opposed to only being able to act after the item has been stolen (which is often too late or results in an excessive risk of the item being destroyed)

2) balance the risk/reward equation for both the criminal and the missioner (raising the thief/griefer's exposure time as a valid target and allowing the missioner to act prior to the item being stolen)


I submit this idea to the forums. It is not intended as a complete or perfect remedy to the problem of unique mission item theft, only as a way of regaining some risk/reward balance for both the missioner and the thief/griefer.

As it is now, there is a disproportionate amount of cost/risk to the missioner for failure, compared to that of the thief/griefer, and little to no opportunity to counter.

TLDR

Game balance is off. Add a suspect flag for trespassing that is triggered when the act of mission item theft is initiated (when the illegal warp into the mission owner's site begins) not only after the item is looted.

There is no reason that a mission thief should have Concord protection after they invade another player's mission space and while they are waiting to loot the mission item.

What is the cost of failure for a missioner?

the fact you have to ask that questions shows that you are only willing to see this from your own ridiculously narrow minded perspective, and therefore aren't worthy of debate.

now get back to your basement.

Is it permanent?

Yes, but he wants his idea to expand to all missions. Not just COSMOS. Also, the COSMOS mission in question will net the person a 1bil + implant. The guys stealing the mission item resells the item on the market for between 500-700mil. Even if the mission runner had to buy the item on the market he would still make a substantial profit. Also if the do the entire COMOS arc they will end it with about almost 10 standing with Caldari wgich means they can get the 2 run BPCs for a Hookbill, Navy Caracal, and a Navy Raven. Again, items that can be resold for a tidy profit. The current game mechanic is balanced. It is just people can't be arsed to learn the game mechanics or be on the ball when missioning in those sites.

This change will make mission sites into defacto PVP arenas. The OP has even confirmed that fact. What he does not want to recognize (and wants proof of), are that griefers, pirates, n'eer do wells will take advantage of this change and cause strife to all mission runners.

One of his threads on this subject has already been locked. See: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=4158933#post4158933

If people really think this is a scare tactic, all they have to do is follow the logic to it's inevitable conclusion.

1. Anyone with combat scan probes can scan down a mission runner.
2. People warping to a mission site they are not the owner of become automatically suspect.
3. PVPers in highsec have asked for PVP Arenas in highsec. Just like WoW. See:
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=74443
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=211778
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=41427
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=9761
4. Dueling System only allows 1v1.
5. PVPers realize that everyone warping into a mission site automatically makes them suspect.
5. Hisec PVPers wanting to PVP between small gangs rejoice at the opportunity to PVP in groups in hisec AND griefing missioners at the same time.

For the COSMOS mission it is permanent, which is why I say the OP has a gripe. It is just his solution that is bad because it does nothing to address the problem while creating other problems of it's own.

He does not consider the problems it creates as being important. He does not accept any discussion, compromise, alternate solution or any logic not 100% in agreement with him as being valid. This thread has been dead since page one.

This entire thread is one long troll, and any attempt to give it some validation for existing is instantly countered by the OP's incessant whining that people don't agree with his solution.

what?

You are spamming a dead issue this is addressed in post #434.



If griefers are going to grief a mission owner, they are going to do it with or without the suggested suspect flag for mission invasion.

The suspect flag does in fact give many more options to the missioner and legal remedies to deal with griefers that do not currently exist. They are listed in the original post.