These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Estella Osoka
Cranky Bitches Who PMS
#421 - 2014-01-28 21:04:25 UTC
Whatever dude.

Nothing will change the fact that I will still be able to easily warp into your mission in a PVP cruiser, wait for you to engage, then kill you and take your mission loot. If you call in for help, then I will still be able to also. If i think i might lose, I will just burn for the mision rat with loot blow it up and then blow up the wreck. No mission loot for you, and no more COSMOS missions unless you pay the isk for item in contracts so you can complete it.
Qalix
Long Jump.
#422 - 2014-01-28 21:20:39 UTC
So you're not going to let us test your great idea? I want to see you engage a PvP ship with your pimped out mission ship. Put up or shut up, as the saying goes.
Abdul 'aleem
Sumiko Yoshida Corporation
#423 - 2014-01-28 21:23:13 UTC  |  Edited by: Abdul 'aleem
Qalix wrote:
So you're not going to let us test your great idea? I want to see you engage a PvP ship with your pimped out mission ship. Put up or shut up, as the saying goes.


If you have any legitimate substantiated concerns, please post along with your supporting facts.

Otherwise it looks like you are just trolling again.

For clarity:

Abdul 'aleem wrote:


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.

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
#424 - 2014-01-28 21:42:21 UTC  |  Edited by: Abdul 'aleem
Estella Osoka wrote:
Whatever dude.

Nothing will change the fact that I will still be able to easily warp into your mission in a PVP cruiser, wait for you to engage, then kill you and take your mission loot. If you call in for help, then I will still be able to also. If i think i might lose, I will just burn for the mision rat with loot blow it up and then blow up the wreck. No mission loot for you, and no more COSMOS missions unless you pay the isk for item in contracts so you can complete it.



If the suggested suspect flag for mission invasion is implemented, you may actually be killed legally before you get the loot. Probably more than a few times.

You will no longer be able to do it with little to no training, in a simple frigate with just a probe launcher equipped, and you will be a legal target with the appropriate suspect flag the whole time you are in the missioner's mission pocket and even after leaving the missioner's pocket.

If you are rightfully suspect flagged for choosing to commit the suspicious act of mission invasion/trespassing, there will be many more legal options available to the missioner aloowing the missioner to better defend against gankers/griefers/"pirates" and thieves

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
#425 - 2014-01-28 21:47:49 UTC
If anyone is guilty of spamming, it's the OP who keeps this troll going.

Most of the posts are someone pointing out or clarifying their objection or potential problem, and the OP coming back with either a declaration that the concern isn't important (though it may be to others), that it has been addressed (in most cases it hasn't or has been declared unimportant), or just him complaining that everyone else who does not agree with him is breaking some forum rule or another.

It is disingenuous to declare problems that affect others as unimportant, while maintaining that your own problems are. The Ninja Salvager does not care about the mission loot or if the missioner gets it. That problem is unimportant to him. The missioner does not care if it is safe or not for the Ninja Salvager to do his thing, that problem is unimportant to him. Neither should get to decide what is important to the other.

Having Access to an area is not the same as owning it. Agents do not spawn areas, they spawn Encounters. The mission is an event, and that event may be interfered with by anyone who has the means to find it. The fact that most NPC ships and structures are not scannable has nothing to do with the concept of ownership. Much of the OP relies on this false piece of inferred logic, despite the fact that nothing in game directly supports it, and a great deal of the entire concept of EVE itself denies it.

A solution that does not solve it's intended problem, which would cause new problems for the people it is intended to benefit, additional problems to neutral parties, and which is easily circumvented by the people for whom it is supposed to be a problem is just a bad solution on every level. As such, while there may be basis for something to be done about the problem pointed out by the OP, the suggested solution is poorly thought out and should not be implemented.

Unless the game client directly shows the missioner as owning the space a mission takes place in, ownership cannot be claimed and any solution predicated on ownership should be considered invalid. Unless a solution actually solves the problem for which it is intended without harming a neutral 3rd party, then that solution should be considered invalid. Unless a solution does not cause as many or more problems than it solves, it should be considered invalid.
Abdul 'aleem
Sumiko Yoshida Corporation
#426 - 2014-01-28 21:53:31 UTC  |  Edited by: Abdul 'aleem
To refute your personal attacks, for clarity and because you may have missed it:

Post #243

DeMichael Crimson wrote:
+1 for the OP. I fully support and endorse this proposal. It is well thought out and concise.


Those posting in opposition are failing miserably trying to come up with reasons not to implement a suspect flag for Mission Invasion. Hell, even the term sounds aggressive :

Quote:

INVASION :
An invasion is a military offensive in which large parts of the armed forces of one geopolitical entity aggressively enter territory controlled by another such entity, generally with the objective of either conquering, liberating or re-establishing control or authority over a territory, forcing the partition of a country, altering the established government or gaining concessions from said government, or a combination thereof. An invasion can be the cause of a war, be a part of a larger strategy to end a war, or it can constitute an entire war in itself.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion


As for ownership, the mission pocket actually belongs to the Agent who is offering it to the player. Once the player accepts the mission offer, that player is now held accountable for it. That, in all intents and purposes, makes the mission runner the owner regardless of the Sov listed in the top left corner of the screen. Usually the actual site itself doesn't spawn until the Mission Runner initiates warp.

There's only a couple of Cosmos Missions that actually spawn the site when accepted such as the 2nd mission of Cosmos Agent - Drone Mind. That mission spawned a site with a visible warp beacon on Overview which anyone could access. CCP has just recently programed that site to spawn multiple times in multiple systems all at the same time due to other players constantly completing the site causing Cosmos Mission Runners to either fail or pay exorbitant prices for the objective item. The same goes for a couple of other Cosmos Agent missions which have visible beacons in Overview.

Anyway back to topic, doesn't matter if it's a Ninja Salvager or Suicide Ganker who enters the site, it's still an invasion which is an aggressive act. Those who think Ninja Salvagers should be exempt or are trying to use that as a reason to dismiss the OP's proposal need to seriously do some research on the terms used :

Quote:
NINJA :
A ninja or shinobi was a covert agent or mercenary in feudal Japan. The functions of the ninja included espionage, sabotage, infiltration, and assassination, and open combat in certain situations. Their covert methods of waging war contrasted the ninja with the samurai, who observed and followed strict rules about honor and combat.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ninja


A true Ninja Salvager would never be seen by the Mission Runner. As such a Suspect Flag wouldn't matter. Most of the so called 'Ninja Salvagers' in this game now are nothing more than Mission Invaders. They obviously aren't very Ninja like at all and have no problem taking loot to get flagged in order to provoke PvP action. So the Suspect Flag is again not a problem.

As for new players, the safety system is set to full (green) right from the start. They wouldn't be able to warp to the site since that would be a suspect action, thus there wouldn't be any accidents happening. All players have the option to change their safety settings from Full (green) to allow suspect acts (yellow) or to perform criminal acts (red). If they do so, ignorance of consequences for those actions can not be used as an excuse.


DMC


It's a dead issue Mike: you were/are still wrong.

It's not personal, so don't turn it into that. Get over it and stop spamming before you get banned.

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
#427 - 2014-01-28 22:07:56 UTC
Sorry bro, there is no personal attack. I suppose it's a nice try at discrediting a line of argument you don't like and can't answer though.

Declaring a thing does not make that thing valid. Much of the justification for the change you want is based upon false assumptions inferred from unrelated facts. That alone invalidates your suggestion

We can remove the word Ninja from the term Ninja Salvager if it makes you feel better. It's still a playstyle impacted negatively by your suggestion which has been directly declared by devs to be legitimate and fair play. That alone invalidates your suggestion.

It has been shown by numerous posters that other problems would arise for missioners if this solution were implemented. That alone invalidates the suggestion.

It has been pointed out how this solution would be effortlessly circumvented by those it is intended to protect against. That alone invalidates the suggestion.

It has been pointed out how the suggestion does nothing to actually help with the problem. That alone invalidates the suggestion.

Refute those proofs if you can, without just re-quoting what you quoted earlier. Take it slow, one thing at a time so we can see how to help you suggest something that will actually address the problem.
Abdul 'aleem
Sumiko Yoshida Corporation
#428 - 2014-01-28 22:13:30 UTC  |  Edited by: Abdul 'aleem
Post #224 addresses impact to salvagers:

I suggest you read the whole exchange and surrounding posts for clarity.

Highlights:

Abdul 'aleem wrote:


This suggestion does not criminalize salvaging at all. It only makes mission invasion/trespassing a suspicious act. Salvaging wrecks would not be criminal or suspicious at all. But, choosing to invade the missioner's site without permission to get that salvage would be a "suspcious act" and you would be flagged if you choose to do it (again without permission).

If CCP intended for salvagers to have 0 risk in salvaging, they would be immune to attack in all areas while they salvaged. It's legal to salvage wrecks in WH, Low and Null space, but doing so carries a certain amount of risk due to the location choice. The fact that salvagers can be attacked while salvaging in these locations is proof that CCP does not have the intention of making the choice to salvage risk free.

A suspect flag for trespassing just puts the decision to salvage in a mission owner's pocket without permission on par with the decision to salvage in WH, Low Sec or Null Sec space. They are never forced to go into any of these areas to salvage nor are they prevented. If the salvager chooses to enter these areas or invade a mission owner's space because the reward (ISK value of salvage) is higher, there is nothing wrong with it carrying a slightly higher level of risk.

In the end, the innocent salvager will only need to contact the missioner to get permission to salvage the site. The salvage thief/griefer gets the flag. If the site is empty/vacant/abandoned, the risk to any of them is almost zero.

An unintended bonus of adding a suspect flag for trespassing may be that it creates the opportunity for salvaging players to experience the risk/excitement associated with salvaging in high risk/high reward areas like WH, Low and Null without actually exposing them to the full risk of being in those areas....



Unless you have something new to offer, you are spam posting another dead issue.

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
#429 - 2014-01-28 22:34:36 UTC  |  Edited by: Mike Voidstar
Your quote does not address the issue.

Identified Issue: Suggested proposal negatively impacts salvaging profession.

Argument: Proposal is invalidated due to negative impact on neutral parties.

You have failed, repeatedly, to answer this issue, instead choosing to quote other failed instances of you failing to address the issue. To not fail, show how this change does not impact a neutral party in a negative fashion, preferably while also showing your proposal to have a positive benefit in any way.

Here is an example of how badly this proposal fails:

Quote:
A suspect flag for trespassing just puts the decision to salvage in a mission owner's pocket without permission on par with the decision to salvage in WH, Low Sec or Null Sec space. They are never forced to go into any of these areas to salvage nor are they prevented. If the salvager chooses to enter these areas or invade a mission owner's space because the reward (ISK value of salvage) is higher, there is nothing wrong with it carrying a slightly higher level of risk.


The problem here is that while the salvager may be annoying to you, he is in fact doing something that CCP has designated as perfectly fine for him to be doing, at the risk/reward level he is currently doing it at. He is not operating in WH/LoSec/NullSec, and as such should not be at that same level of risk. As he is in High Sec space, he should be operating at High Sec levels of Risk.
Abdul 'aleem
Sumiko Yoshida Corporation
#430 - 2014-01-28 22:39:32 UTC  |  Edited by: Abdul 'aleem
Mike Voidstar wrote:
Your quote does not address the issue.

Identified Issue: Suggested proposal negatively impacts salvaging profession.

Argument: Proposal is invalidated due to negative impact on neutral parties.

You have failed, repeatedly, to answer this issue, instead choosing to quote other failed instances of you failing to address the issue. To not fail, show how this change does not impact a neutral party in a negative fashion, preferably while also showing your proposal to have a positive benefit in any way.



OK Mike, you disagree. I hear you.

Others don't agree with your opinions or reasoning, myself included.

We can agree to disagree.

This issue was addressed and anyone can review the posts around #224 to follow the exchange if they wish to.

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
#431 - 2014-01-28 22:49:04 UTC  |  Edited by: Abdul 'aleem
Mike Voidstar wrote:
Your quote does not address the issue.

Identified Issue: Suggested proposal negatively impacts salvaging profession.

Argument: Proposal is invalidated due to negative impact on neutral parties.

You have failed, repeatedly, to answer this issue, instead choosing to quote other failed instances of you failing to address the issue. To not fail, show how this change does not impact a neutral party in a negative fashion, preferably while also showing your proposal to have a positive benefit in any way.

Here is an example of how badly this proposal fails:

Quote:
A suspect flag for trespassing just puts the decision to salvage in a mission owner's pocket without permission on par with the decision to salvage in WH, Low Sec or Null Sec space. They are never forced to go into any of these areas to salvage nor are they prevented. If the salvager chooses to enter these areas or invade a mission owner's space because the reward (ISK value of salvage) is higher, there is nothing wrong with it carrying a slightly higher level of risk.


The problem here is that while the salvager may be annoying to you, he is in fact doing something that CCP has designated as perfectly fine for him to be doing, at the risk/reward level he is currently doing it at. He is not operating in WH/LoSec/NullSec, and as such should not be at that same level of risk. As he is in High Sec space, he should be operating at High Sec levels of Risk.



OK Mike, you disagree. I hear you.

If the only thing that you are offering is your opinion, the only thing that I can offer in response is that others don't agree with your opinions or reasoning, myself included. Many have posted in this thread.

We can agree to disagree.

The impact to salvagers was addressed and anyone can review the posts around #224 to follow the exchange and form their own opinion.

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
#432 - 2014-01-28 23:32:44 UTC
The impact is not addressed, it is simply discounted as being unimportant to you.

You fail to show any evidence that the salvaging profession needs to be adjusted in high sec to the same levels of risk it entails in the more dangerous areas of space. As such, your proposal needs adjusting to something that does not have this negative impact.

Preferably it would be adjusted so that it has any positive impact, at all, for anyone.

If you want a proof that something is badly wrong, understand that getting myself and Mags or Diamichi to agree is theoretically impossible. We are literally at opposite ends of the player spectrum. I should be on your side, except that there is simply no basis or benefit to the change you suggest.
Abdul 'aleem
Sumiko Yoshida Corporation
#433 - 2014-01-28 23:42:42 UTC  |  Edited by: Abdul 'aleem
Mike Voidstar wrote:
The impact is not addressed, it is simply discounted as being unimportant to you.

You fail to show any evidence that the salvaging profession needs to be adjusted in high sec to the same levels of risk it entails in the more dangerous areas of space. As such, your proposal needs adjusting to something that does not have this negative impact.



Others believe your opinions and conclusions are wrong, myself included.

Many have posted opinions that counter yours and provide more basis than "it's just a bad idea."

The impact to salvagers is addressed in and around post #224.

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.

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
#434 - 2014-01-28 23:52:28 UTC
Nope, its not. You are simply declaring that since WH/LoSec/NullSec space is more dangerous for salvagers, that somehow High Sec Salvaging should be that dangerous too.

Your proposal strips a salvager of the protection inherant to high sec space, for no reason. How is handwaving this issue as unimportant in any way addressing it?

You fail in post after post to address even the most rudimentary flaws in your proposal, instead insisting that any point not supporting you is simply unimportant. That is not how discussion works.
Abdul 'aleem
Sumiko Yoshida Corporation
#435 - 2014-01-28 23:57:45 UTC  |  Edited by: Abdul 'aleem
Mike Voidstar wrote:
Nope, its not. You are simply declaring that since WH/LoSec/NullSec space is more dangerous for salvagers, that somehow High Sec Salvaging should be that dangerous too.



I think that you don't understand the post #224.

Mike Voidstar wrote:

Your proposal strips a salvager of the protection inherant to high sec space, for no reason. How is handwaving this issue as unimportant in any way addressing it?



No it doesn't. The suggested suspect flag is specific to invading a mission site and doesn't effect "all of high sec."

for clarity and to counter the spamming/trolling by my friend Mike here:

Abdul 'aleem wrote:


This suggestion does not criminalize salvaging at all. It only makes mission invasion/trespassing a suspicious act. Salvaging wrecks would not be criminal or suspicious at all. But, choosing to invade the missioner's site without permission to get that salvage would be a "suspcious act" and you would be flagged if you choose to do it (again without permission).

If CCP intended for salvagers to have 0 risk in salvaging, they would be immune to attack in all areas while they salvaged. It's legal to salvage wrecks in WH, Low and Null space, but doing so carries a certain amount of risk due to the location choice. The fact that salvagers can be attacked while salvaging in these locations is proof that CCP does not have the intention of making the choice to salvage risk free.

A suspect flag for trespassing just puts the decision to salvage in a mission owner's pocket without permission on par with the decision to salvage in WH, Low Sec or Null Sec space. They are never forced to go into any of these areas to salvage nor are they prevented. If the salvager chooses to enter these areas or invade a mission owner's space because the reward (ISK value of salvage) is higher, there is nothing wrong with it carrying a slightly higher level of risk.

In the end, the innocent salvager will only need to contact the missioner to get permission to salvage the site. The salvage thief/griefer gets the flag. If the site is empty/vacant/abandoned, the risk to any of them is almost zero.

An unintended bonus of adding a suspect flag for trespassing may be that it creates the opportunity for salvaging players to experience the risk/excitement associated with salvaging in high risk/high reward areas like WH, Low and Null without actually exposing them to the full risk of being in those areas....

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
#436 - 2014-01-28 23:58:18 UTC  |  Edited by: Mike Voidstar
double post
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
#437 - 2014-01-28 23:59:10 UTC  |  Edited by: Mike Voidstar
Abdul 'aleem wrote:

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.


Oddly, most of your posts, and all of them containing this quote, qualify. Thanks for being so helpful and pointing that out.

You see the same points being brought up because you are posting the same nonsense non-answers to the problems with your proposal, while refusing to actually enter into any discussion of the topic.
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
#438 - 2014-01-29 00:09:16 UTC
I just want to be clear:

Are you proposing that not only do you assume (incorrectly) that the space your mission encounter takes place in is yours, but that it in fact no longer to be considered High Security Space?

It seems that is what you are trying to accomplish, and if so I would be careful what gou wish for.
Abdul 'aleem
Sumiko Yoshida Corporation
#439 - 2014-01-29 00:10:09 UTC
Goldiiee wrote:
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.



I agree, Goldiiee.

Many people are doing this.

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.
My Little Pyongyang
Doomheim
#440 - 2014-01-29 00:11:01 UTC
Suspect flag for going into someone's pocket without authorization sounds fun. It would cause more pvp. Isn't that what pocket invaders want overall? Surely they aren't looking for easy targets and are scrub-tier pvpers.