Player Features and Ideas Discussion

I was just looking at the thread for creating a Titan graveyard - that's got about 80-odd likes already in only 5 pages and has CSM and DEVs supporting it. It's quite a popular idea by the looks of it.

This thread has 7 likes for the OP over 29 pages. And you've even linked it in your sig and spammed the Mission boards too.

Have you tried posting it in C&P? I'm sure they'll go for it.

I don't want to start two discussion threads.

But I will ask for advice there.

So we're dropping the 'protect mission runners' thing and going with a 'encourage PvP' angle. Yeah, that might appeal to more people. You should get a job in marketing.

It's quite obvious that the OP has his premise on how things should be, has based the idea on that premise and will not deviate from it. No matter how wrong the original premise was. He has no desire in admitting any flaws in it and most likely can't see them any way.

This idea opens up an easy 'Lofty' style scenario and makes it rather easier than the original (long closed) aggression loophole. This would make his actions look minor, in comparison to what could await mission runners after a change of this sort. For this reason alone, it will never be implemented.

His flawed premise also means that a perfectly legitimate profession, is now liable for a suspect flag. Not only that, but the idea expressly changes the mechanic and asks for wrecks now to have ownership. Which goes against the design concept for that profession. Opening up calls for all wrecks to show ownership, no matter where they are. If we chose to ignore the 'Lofty' similarities, then this change is also enough to reduce this idea to a fail heap.

There are other situations that this idea could bring. One of them being how long that mission space flags anyone entering it? Then all of the problems that arise out of that particular decision.

But like I said. No matter how many issues you bring to light, the OP will point to some flawed excuse, based on his flawed premise and simply dismiss it. In others words, you're all pi**ing into the wind.

Didn't read all 30 pages, but I will say this. The OPs idea is among the stupidest I ever heard. Don't expect even a comment on it from the devs, I'm sure they have enough to do without responding to every crackpot notion posted on the forums by idiots.

I have read and re-read the OP, and the resulting threadfail. Of the many things bothing me is this:

It has been stated that placing the flag on anyone warping to the pocket without the missioner's permission allows for many more options not currently available, and that these options have been listed in the OP and subsequent posts.


All I see is 1 additional option: Preemptive attack by the missioner without fear of CONCORD reprisal.

Where are these other options? Preemptive attack is a bad move for a PvE fit mission runner on a PvP fit mission invader. This suggestion will only result in more dead ships and pods held hostage for ransom.

Where is the additional danger and risk for the group being targeted for the change? They don't need any different ship than they currently use (anyone that thinks a frigate is in danger from a battleship in EVE has clearly never heard the word 'tracking', and while light drones work so do smartbombs), and even if they found themselves bothered by drones they circumvent the change with about one additional week's training with a cov-ops cloak. Granted, the cov-ops ship is many times more expensive than what they were required to fly, it's also going to be completely immune to the change and even more efficient at invading missions for grief and profit than previous.

The suggestion does nothing to address the balance issue between mission-objective thieves and the missioners. That is just one of many levels this suggestion fails on.

Dear OP, this is a bad idea and will result in the opposite result you want. Take a knee and punch yourself. Then pray that CCP does not listen to you.

Thanks for the support.

In real life, trespassing is a crime as many people have pointed out in this thread.

Most rational people agree with you and know that having the game treat mission invasion as a "suspicious" act is totally reasonable.

And, the suspect flag would definitely result in increased risk to the griefer due to them then being open to global attack by everyone, everywhere, while the suspect flag is active... most rational people can also see how this is a benefit to the missioners (who right now can have their missions invaded without any legal options to counter at all).

As has been pointed out, right now, griefers can invade a mission pocket whenever they want to and can do their griefer thing (mission item theft included) with little to no risk. The griefers even enjoy Concord protection after invading the mission owner's pocket, which is absurd, because the game doesn't add the appropriate suspect flag.

Thanks again for your ability to see past the lies, deception, fear mongering, trolling, thread crapping and spamming that have resulted from the inability to come up with any substantiated reason as to why this suggestion should not be implemented.

This has been posted, Mike.

Suspect flags are global... if you cannot understand how many possibilities exist from that fact after reading and re-reading this thread as you claim to have done, I cannot help you to.


Edit: For everyone else coming into the thread, read posts in and around #223 and again around #232

Thanks for acknowledging at least one additional cost increase to the griefer as a result of this suggestion. I agree with your opinion that it would create the need for more training and a higher ISK investment on the part of the griefer than is currently required.

Along with the added global risk of that ship being legally attacked/killed immediately after the decision to mission invade is made, and the continued global risk of being killed even after leaving the mission owner's pocket, this all helps balance out the risk/reward equation.