EVE-Search ForumWatch

Now - this isn't right. - by Armoured C

Sun, 22 Jun 2009 23:08:00 +0000

Edited by: Armoured C on 22/06/2008 23:08:38
the devs on this thread OMG

autographs please =)

missioning is boring though

i myself prefer gas harvesting

Now - this isn't right. - by JamnOne

Sun, 22 Jun 2009 23:06:00 +0000

Originally by: CCP Explorer
Yes, an unintended issue in the software or game mechanics; in this case game mechanics that lended itself to griefing. A defect becomes a bug when the software does not function materially according to the design or does not function at all.

CCP Explorer - Thank you for the quick responses. It is greatly appreciated.
________________________

Originally by: CCP Wrangler
So, it's all my fault.

Originally by: CCP Prism X
Hah! Vengeance is sweet!

Now - this isn't right. - by Quelque Chose

Sun, 22 Jun 2009 21:06:00 +0000

Originally by: Malcanis

But the principle of deeming that someone "owns" a rat without firing so much as a shot at it offends me.

Well, that strikes me as being a somewhat dogmatic reaction; especially when the alternative you seem to be advocating is that even though you've ground the standing, made the investment in equipment and otherwise created the conditions necessary for that rat to be there in the first place, someone else can in fact just show up and "own" not just the rat but the entire mission without possibility of challenge.

As it stands now you'll still probably get "owned" (as in "pwned") anyway, but given that somebody is going to have legal title to that wreck -- and given that the contents of that wreck are of somewhat more importance than that of a belt rat -- I think the new solution is as equitable as any.

Quote:
I'm perfectly well aware of the "slippery slope" fallacy, but that's a change with pretty big implications. It's a very small conceptual difference from being concorded for shooting your can to being concorded for shooting "your" rat.

I'm sorry, I just find that to be a bit of a stretch. Gimme a yell when they do that.

Quote:
In short, I think this change is wrong in principle. It's a step in exactly the wrong direction. If someone wants to "own" the rats in their mission, they have the option to mission in low/0.0 sec where they can do whatever they damb well please to mission invaders.

Yeah, and high sec pirates could always head out to no man's land if they don't like rinkydink empire aggro rules. But the fact is neither party is doing that in this case and I can't agree that the principle is wrong here. I could maybe see doing away with ownership of rat wrecks entirely, but if one person or the other has to own it then this seems entirely reasonable IMO.
___________________________________________

Now - this isn't right. - by Thorradin

Sun, 22 Jun 2009 21:03:00 +0000

Originally by: Malcanis
I'm sorry to say that I find your responses in this thread extremely disappointing. One can only wonder what other such "defects" will be resolved.

Not to mention that the definition of "griefing" seems to have changed rather radically. I wasn't aware that shooting rats qualified until now - when was this change decided on?

Warp into a mission, shoot a player's mission objectie, shoot the wreck, laugh at player who now fails the mission because you took a few seconds t pop their item, CONCORD-free in highsec.

Why no, I can't find any possible way that that could be used to grief, you're right, you aren't just whining.

Now - this isn't right. - by Turix

Sun, 22 Jun 2009 21:01:00 +0000

Edited by: Turix on 22/06/2008 21:05:03
Edited by: Turix on 22/06/2008 21:03:04

Originally by: CCP Explorer
You can still steal their stuff.

Curiously, why not do it the "wow way", aka you have rights on the mission critical loot aka Quest item, while the other loot remains under normal rules.

It seems like changing the entire contents of the loot was either lazy, or an attempt to dumb the game down. Correct me if i wrong ofc, but that doesnt seem good

Clarification, dumbing the game down by removing one way a mission runner could get themselves killed, aka making it easier for carebears to avoid that PVP. Which is becoming more and more consensual by the patch
__________________________

Now - this isn't right. - by Thorradin

Sun, 22 Jun 2009 20:56:00 +0000

Originally by: Virgo I'Platonicus
Originally by: CCP Explorer
Edited by: CCP Explorer on 21/06/2008 23:28:17
Originally by: Malcanis
Originally by: CCP Explorer
This change was made in Trinity 1.1. It was possible for griefers to kill your mission NPCs, causing the loot cans to be tagged to them. Once you tried to take your own mission loot, you ended up being flagged to them, and they would come and gank you.
And this was bad in what way?
Because you didn't get the rights to your mission loot, which could include an important object to complete the mission...

And why didnt you change it so only the loot that is required by the mission was flagged to the owner of the mission , making instead all loot flagged to the owner?

V.

Probably because it either wouldn't work, or was needlessly complicated and what they ended up doing made more sense than leaving it as it stood?

Now - this isn't right. - by Patch86

Sun, 22 Jun 2009 20:50:00 +0000

Edited by: Patch86 on 22/06/2008 20:51:19
I'm not sure I understand the outrage. EVE is a PvP game. If you're going to steal things from someone else's task (nothing wrong with that, I might add, EVE welcomes theft and murder in all it's merry forms) it's not unreasonable to allow the person to retaliate. Being able to do something that is clearly relatively hostile with full CCP hand-holding protection isn't exactly in the spirit of EVE's dog-eat-dog world. IMO, CONCORD should bugger off in far more circumstances in just this way, so that players are allowed to settle things between themselves properly: with explosions.

It doesn't stop you stealing. It only stops you stealing if the mission runner wants to fight you for it. For one, anyone trying to pinch other players' loot should be macho enough to risk getting shot at, and for two, mission running setups don't usually include much in the way of warp scrambling or PvP balance. Fit a decent tank (and preferably gank, for that lovely kill) on your ninja-looter and enjoy the added action.

EDIT: Not directed at the OP, by the way. I know you weren't ninja-looting, I was just ranting at the rest of this thread.
------

Originally by: Dark Shikari
The problem with killing Jesus is he always just respawns 3 days later anyways.

Now - this isn't right. - by Malcanis

Sun, 22 Jun 2009 20:42:00 +0000

Originally by: Quelque Chose
Edited by: Quelque Chose on 22/06/2008 20:32:08
Edited by: Quelque Chose on 22/06/2008 20:31:29
Edited by: Quelque Chose on 22/06/2008 20:31:13
Originally by: Malcanis

I'm sorry to say that I find your responses in this thread extremely disappointing. One can only wonder what other such "defects" will be resolved.

Not to mention that the definition of "griefing" seems to have changed rather radically. I wasn't aware that shooting rats qualified until now - when was this change decided on?

Look man, before you come in here and start yelling "slippery slope" all over the place think about what's changed in practical terms.

About the only thing you can't do now that you could do previously is force a mission- runner who took the sensible precaution of flying the mission ganged with corpmates to fight you solo for the mission objective.

You can still warp in while a missioner is sucking up aggro, pop the objective ship, scoop up the militants and then either hope he's dumb enough to engage you or else ransom the mission... which is pretty much the same as previous. *edit* Hell, come to that you can even flip the can.

This change doesn't stop "griefing" so much as it simply removes what amounted to a small subsidy for it. What's wrong with that? Sounds like less "hand holding" to me.

It took me less than 5 seconds to think of at least one way in which this change could be used for "griefing".

But the principle of deeming that someone "owns" a rat without firing so much as a shot at it offends me. I'm perfectly well aware of the "slippery slope" fallacy, but that's a change with pretty big implications. It's a very small conceptual difference from being concorded for shooting your can to being concorded for shooting "your" rat.

In short, I think this change is wrong in principle. It's a step in exactly the wrong direction. If someone wants to "own" the rats in their mission, they have the option to mission in low/0.0 sec where they can do whatever they damb well please to mission invaders.

CONCORD provide consequences, not safety; only you can do that.

Now - this isn't right. - by Quelque Chose

Sun, 22 Jun 2009 20:30:00 +0000

Edited by: Quelque Chose on 22/06/2008 20:32:08
Edited by: Quelque Chose on 22/06/2008 20:31:29
Edited by: Quelque Chose on 22/06/2008 20:31:13

Originally by: Malcanis

I'm sorry to say that I find your responses in this thread extremely disappointing. One can only wonder what other such "defects" will be resolved.

Not to mention that the definition of "griefing" seems to have changed rather radically. I wasn't aware that shooting rats qualified until now - when was this change decided on?

Look man, before you come in here and start yelling "slippery slope" all over the place think about what's changed in practical terms.

About the only thing you can't do now that you could do previously is force a mission- runner who took the sensible precaution of flying the mission ganged with corpmates to fight you solo for the mission objective.

You can still warp in while a missioner is sucking up aggro, pop the objective ship, scoop up the militants and then either hope he's dumb enough to engage you or else ransom the mission... which is pretty much the same as previous. *edit* Hell, come to that you can even flip the can.

This change doesn't stop "griefing" so much as it simply removes what amounted to a small subsidy for it. What's wrong with that? Sounds like less "hand holding" to me.
___________________________________________

Now - this isn't right. - by Malcanis

Sun, 22 Jun 2009 20:21:00 +0000

Originally by: CCP Explorer
Originally by: JamnOne
But I have to ask, what is a "defect"? Is it like a bug?
Yes, an unintended issue in the software or game mechanics; in this case game mechanics that lended itself to griefing. A defect becomes a bug when the software does not function materially according to the design or does not function at all.

I'm sorry to say that I find your responses in this thread extremely disappointing. One can only wonder what other such "defects" will be resolved.

Not to mention that the definition of "griefing" seems to have changed rather radically. I wasn't aware that shooting rats qualified until now - when was this change decided on?

CONCORD provide consequences, not safety; only you can do that.

Now - this isn't right. - by Kirex

Sun, 22 Jun 2009 19:46:00 +0000

Why are you guys *****ing? If someone REALLY wants to steal your stuff, they're going to do it whether or not they're flagged to you.

If you're a carebear:
Now you have the chance to shoot people stealing your stuff! This should be a dream come true, right?

If you're a "pirate"(?):
Stop being a *****.

Now - this isn't right. - by CCP Explorer

Sun, 22 Jun 2009 17:13:00 +0000

Originally by: JamnOne
But I have to ask, what is a "defect"? Is it like a bug?

Yes, an unintended issue in the software or game mechanics; in this case game mechanics that lended itself to griefing. A defect becomes a bug when the software does not function materially according to the design or does not function at all.

Erlendur S. Thorsteinsson
Software Director
EVE Online, CCP Games

Now - this isn't right. - by Zak Zerachiel

Sun, 22 Jun 2009 16:47:00 +0000

Originally by: Ricdic
I don't see a problem with this as long as people in a gang with the mission runner don't also get flagged for stealing when collecting loot.

From my experience, and the experiences of others seen in this thread, when you're fleeted, and the mission holder is in the area with you, you don't get flagged.

But of course, after they leave..... it warns you. Surprised the hell outta me the other day when it happened.

Now - this isn't right. - by Havohej

Sun, 22 Jun 2009 16:34:00 +0000

Originally by: JamnOne
Originally by: CCP Explorer
You can still steal their stuff.
I like this...CCP Explorer has given us permission to steal their stuff.

CCP Explorer, thank you for creating Sig Material and answering my question. But I have to ask, what is a "defect"? Is it like a bug?

He's right. That is TOTALLY sig material. Sorry techzer0, your quote has just been replaced

Originally by: CCP Explorer
You can still steal their stuff.

Now - this isn't right. - by JamnOne

Sun, 22 Jun 2009 16:24:00 +0000

Originally by: CCP Explorer
You can still steal their stuff.

I like this...CCP Explorer has given us permission to steal their stuff.

CCP Explorer, thank you for creating Sig Material and answering my question. But I have to ask, what is a "defect"? Is it like a bug?
________________________

Originally by: CCP Wrangler
So, it's all my fault.

Originally by: CCP Prism X
Hah! Vengeance is sweet!

Now - this isn't right. - by Ricdic

Sun, 22 Jun 2009 15:23:00 +0000

I don't see a problem with this as long as people in a gang with the mission runner don't also get flagged for stealing when collecting loot.

http://myeve.eve-online.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=500043
Largest Empire Research Alliance in EVE!

Now - this isn't right. - by Rawthorm

Sun, 22 Jun 2009 15:06:00 +0000

Originally by: Havohej

Not your fault, I suppose, and we don't mean to take this out on you... but I'm sure you see where the disappointment of a sizable portion of the playerbase lies. Gone are the days of "wahwah bad stuff happened!11!!" "Oh well, welcome to EVE yarr!" exchanges. New Eden is getting soft.

Softer to who? Seems pretty ballanced to me now. A bit softer on the mission runner and a bit harder to the griefer.
He's not prevented from doing it, mearly now has a consiquence.

Now - this isn't right. - by Gimpb

Sun, 22 Jun 2009 14:50:00 +0000

Mission items are considered to be owned by the player with the mission I believe, so if you pick up one of those for him you'd get flagged.

Now - this isn't right. - by CCP Explorer

Sun, 22 Jun 2009 14:27:00 +0000

You can still steal their stuff.

Erlendur S. Thorsteinsson
Software Director
EVE Online, CCP Games

Now - this isn't right. - by Havohej

Sun, 22 Jun 2009 11:15:00 +0000

Not your fault, I suppose, and we don't mean to take this out on you... but I'm sure you see where the disappointment of a sizable portion of the playerbase lies. Gone are the days of "wahwah bad stuff happened!11!!" "Oh well, welcome to EVE yarr!" exchanges. New Eden is getting soft.

DFIAS Recruitment: OPEN

Now - this isn't right. - by Malcanis

Sun, 22 Jun 2009 10:45:00 +0000

Originally by: CCP Explorer
Edited by: CCP Explorer on 22/06/2008 10:36:11
Originally by: techzer0
Originally by: CCP Explorer
In accordance with general CCP policy I comment on issues within my area of expertise, which is why I commented on how the game mechanics work and the software insight into the change.
Or someone ganked your missions?
Nice hat you have there, is it tinfoil?

It's more mundane, a defect was filed, Game Design approved the suggested change and Software (my dept.) made the change.

A... "defect"?

CONCORD provide consequences, not safety; only you can do that.

Now - this isn't right. - by Tzar'rim

Sun, 22 Jun 2009 10:35:00 +0000

Then why has this been changed just now, why not 5 years ago?

Now - this isn't right. - by CCP Explorer

Sun, 22 Jun 2009 10:31:00 +0000

Originally by: techzer0
Originally by: CCP Explorer
In accordance with general CCP policy I comment on issues within my area of expertise, which is why I commented on how the game mechanics work and the software insight into the change.
Or someone ganked your missions?

Nice hat you have there, tinfoil?

It's more mundane, a defect was filed, Game Design approved the suggested change and Software (my dept.) made the change.

Erlendur S. Thorsteinsson
Software Director
EVE Online, CCP Games

Now - this isn't right. - by techzer0

Sun, 22 Jun 2009 10:28:00 +0000

Originally by: CCP Explorer
In accordance with general CCP policy I comment on issues within my area of expertise, which is why I commented on how the game mechanics work and the software insight into the change.

Or someone ganked your missions?

I'll have to remember this next time I find an empty lvl 4 like the other night... Kill the rats and the wrecks don't belong to me... sweet!

I think I just like being flagged...
------------

Originally by: CCP Mitnal
It's great being a puppetmaster

Now - this isn't right. - by Havohej

Sun, 22 Jun 2009 10:25:00 +0000

Heh...

DFIAS Recruitment: OPEN

Now - this isn't right. - by CCP Explorer

Sun, 22 Jun 2009 10:24:00 +0000

In accordance with general CCP policy I comment on issues within my area of expertise, which is why I commented on how the game mechanics work and the software insight into the change.

Erlendur S. Thorsteinsson
Software Director
EVE Online, CCP Games

Now - this isn't right. - by Dihania

Sun, 22 Jun 2009 10:22:00 +0000

Originally by: Havohej
What's up with "The Hand-holding Age"?

I have to point this out.
"The Hand-holding Age".
100% agree.

Hope we do get an answer.

And now I'm making this new sig...
.
EVE: "The Hand-holding Age".
I need isk!Accepting donations.
Renting sig space.Taking various jobs.

Now - this isn't right. - by Havohej

Sun, 22 Jun 2009 10:14:00 +0000

An interesting insight into how the game operates - explains a couple of incidents that happened in 0.0 belts recently. Thanks!

A little disappointing though that you chose to address the slap fight between myself and the other poster, but glossed over this question which I'm infinitely more interested in:

Originally by: Tob Seayours
This is a pretty significant change of direction to your usual "dark, harsh, survival of the fittest"-game mechanics. Why?

What's up with "The Hand-holding Age"?

DFIAS Recruitment: OPEN

Now - this isn't right. - by CCP Explorer

Sun, 22 Jun 2009 09:58:00 +0000

Edited by: CCP Explorer on 22/06/2008 10:00:40

Originally by: Havohej
Originally by: Quelque Chose
Glad you're here to point that out, otherwise some foolish people might think it had something to do with extra db queries.
Right, because now, instead of just a simple "who killed the rat that made this wreck" query, it has to go "who killed this rat?" "okay, but was it a deadspace rat?" "crap, was it a mission rat then, or just a regular deadspace rat?" "okay, then who owned the mission??"

Clearly the new way is simpler and requires less database queries. You ARE fortunate I'm here to point things out and protect foolish people.

Neither before nor after required any significant number of DB calls and the calculations after are more simple; we simply added an attribute to the mission spawn site (the mission owner ID) and instead of calculating who did the most damage we simply assign all to the mission owner.

Only assigning the "special NPCs" to the mission owner would have required extra DB calls to find out which NPCs were special with regards to the mission objectives and which were not.

Erlendur S. Thorsteinsson
Software Director
EVE Online, CCP Games

Now - this isn't right. - by Quelque Chose

Sun, 22 Jun 2009 09:57:00 +0000

Originally by: Havohej
V. asks why it's like that, instead of the way that's described in the hypothetical dialogue I quoted from your post. I answer that it is because EVE has entered the Hand-holding Age.

Yes. And I'm telling you and the other guy it's because of server load that he doesn't get it that way and not because of some perceived "pussification programme."

Thanks for straightening yourself out about that, that was nifty.
___________________________________________

Now - this isn't right. - by Havohej

Sun, 22 Jun 2009 09:51:00 +0000

Um... noooo? Maybe you didn't read.

Originally by: Quelque Chose

2. Maybe you just didn't read the post you quoted, but assuming you did here's the part of the dialogue you left out:

This is the dialogue that the rest of your post implies you're referring to:

Quote:
And why didnt you change it so only the loot that is required by the mission was flagged to the owner of the mission , making instead all loot flagged to the owner?

V.

The rest of your post describes exactly the situation that V. suggests:

Quote:
"Well ok, who owns it?"

"Depends."

"What do you mean depends?"

"Well, was it one of the 600 regular rats or one of the two special ones?"

"Um... special?"

"Well then the mission owner gets it."

"What if it was a regular one then?"

"Depends. Who shot it?"

Are you with me so far? Okay, good. Now, as described in the OP and in the confirmation posts by the dev, we know that it doesn't currently work that way - that is, it isn't JUST the 'special' rats that drop the item required to complete the mission that are flagged to the mission's owner - it's ALL of the rats in the mission.

V. asks why it's like that, instead of the way that's described in the hypothetical dialogue I quoted from your post. I answer that it is because EVE has entered the Hand-holding Age.

Do you understand what has been happening in this thread for the last few posts, now? Are you fully up-to-speed?

DFIAS Recruitment: OPEN

Now - this isn't right. - by Quelque Chose

Sun, 22 Jun 2009 09:45:00 +0000

Originally by: Havohej

Right, because now, instead of just a simple "who killed the rat that made this wreck" query, it has to go "who killed this rat?" "okay, but was it a deadspace rat?" "crap, was it a mission rat then, or just a regular deadspace rat?" "okay, then who owned the mission??"

Clearly the new way is simpler and requires less database queries. You ARE fortunate I'm here to point things out and protect foolish people.

1. Nah. Just assign an owner when you spawn the rats rather than when the rat gets popped. Same same.

2. Maybe you just didn't read the post you quoted, but assuming you did here's the part of the dialogue you left out:

"Well ok, who owns it?"

"Depends."

"What do you mean depends?"

"Well, was it one of the 600 regular rats or one of the two special ones?"

"Um... special?"

"Well then the mission owner gets it."

"What if it was a regular one then?"

"Depends. Who shot it?"
___________________________________________

Now - this isn't right. - by Havohej

Sun, 22 Jun 2009 09:40:00 +0000

Originally by: Quelque Chose
Originally by: Havohej

Faction Warfare marks the beginning of the Empyrean Age, which is actually part of a larger development in EVE's progression called "The Hand-holding Age", which began with Trinity. In "The Hand-holding Age" CCP makes wide sweeping changes to the game mechanics, like this one, that are designed to hold the hands of the weak and slow-thinking players who find it difficult to adapt to changing circumstances in real-time.

This is the reason.

Glad you're here to point that out, otherwise some foolish people might think it had something to do with extra db queries.

Right, because now, instead of just a simple "who killed the rat that made this wreck" query, it has to go "who killed this rat?" "okay, but was it a deadspace rat?" "crap, was it a mission rat then, or just a regular deadspace rat?" "okay, then who owned the mission??"

Clearly the new way is simpler and requires less database queries. You ARE fortunate I'm here to point things out and protect foolish people.

DFIAS Recruitment: OPEN

Now - this isn't right. - by Tob Seayours

Sun, 22 Jun 2009 09:37:00 +0000

Originally by: CCP Explorer
Edited by: CCP Explorer on 21/06/2008 23:28:17
Originally by: Malcanis
Originally by: CCP Explorer
This change was made in Trinity 1.1. It was possible for griefers to kill your mission NPCs, causing the loot cans to be tagged to them. Once you tried to take your own mission loot, you ended up being flagged to them, and they would come and gank you.
And this was bad in what way?
Because you didn't get the rights to your mission loot, which could include an important object to complete the mission...

This is a pretty significant change of direction to your usual "dark, harsh, survival of the fittest"-game mechanics. Why?

Now - this isn't right. - by Quelque Chose

Sun, 22 Jun 2009 09:36:00 +0000

Originally by: Havohej

Faction Warfare marks the beginning of the Empyrean Age, which is actually part of a larger development in EVE's progression called "The Hand-holding Age", which began with Trinity. In "The Hand-holding Age" CCP makes wide sweeping changes to the game mechanics, like this one, that are designed to hold the hands of the weak and slow-thinking players who find it difficult to adapt to changing circumstances in real-time.

This is the reason.

Glad you're here to point that out, otherwise some foolish people might think it had something to do with extra db queries.
___________________________________________

Now - this isn't right. - by Arachnid Vampire

Sun, 22 Jun 2009 09:34:00 +0000

Originally by: Surfin's PlunderBunny
Who cares anyway? He's in a noob ship, what's he gonna do?

I couldn't help but laugh at this. But considering he was a noob, and it was his mission, the wrecks probably didn't have anything worth while anyway.
---
I haven't thought of a signature yet.

Now - this isn't right. - by Havohej

Sun, 22 Jun 2009 09:33:00 +0000

Originally by: Virgo I'Platonicus

And why didnt you change it so only the loot that is required by the mission was flagged to the owner of the mission , making instead all loot flagged to the owner?

V.

Faction Warfare marks the beginning of the Empyrean Age, which is actually part of a larger development in EVE's progression called "The Hand-holding Age", which began with Trinity. In "The Hand-holding Age" CCP makes wide sweeping changes to the game mechanics, like this one, that are designed to hold the hands of the weak and slow-thinking players who find it difficult to adapt to changing circumstances in real-time.

This is the reason.

DFIAS Recruitment: OPEN

Now - this isn't right. - by Virgo I'Platonicus

Sun, 22 Jun 2009 09:29:00 +0000

Originally by: CCP Explorer
Edited by: CCP Explorer on 21/06/2008 23:28:17
Originally by: Malcanis
Originally by: CCP Explorer
This change was made in Trinity 1.1. It was possible for griefers to kill your mission NPCs, causing the loot cans to be tagged to them. Once you tried to take your own mission loot, you ended up being flagged to them, and they would come and gank you.
And this was bad in what way?
Because you didn't get the rights to your mission loot, which could include an important object to complete the mission...

And why didnt you change it so only the loot that is required by the mission was flagged to the owner of the mission , making instead all loot flagged to the owner?

V.
<3

Now - this isn't right. - by soldieroffortune 258

Sun, 22 Jun 2009 00:26:00 +0000

i ran into this problem a while ago to, was fleeted w/ a non corp member and we were about to start looting (me and my corp mate, w/ our fleet members permission) and it was saying that we would be stealing, we found out though, that once the person who is running the mission is there, then you can loot the wrecks w/ out being flagged

Now - this isn't right. - by CCP Explorer

Sat, 21 Jun 2009 23:28:00 +0000

Edited by: CCP Explorer on 21/06/2008 23:28:17

Originally by: Malcanis
Originally by: CCP Explorer
This change was made in Trinity 1.1. It was possible for griefers to kill your mission NPCs, causing the loot cans to be tagged to them. Once you tried to take your own mission loot, you ended up being flagged to them, and they would come and gank you.
And this was bad in what way?

Because you didn't get the rights to your mission loot, which could include an important object to complete the mission...

Erlendur S. Thorsteinsson
Software Director
EVE Online, CCP Games

Now - this isn't right. - by Malcanis

Sat, 21 Jun 2009 23:15:00 +0000

Originally by: CCP Explorer
Originally by: JamnOne
why this change if I may ask?
This change was made in Trinity 1.1. It was possible for griefers to kill your mission NPCs, causing the loot cans to be tagged to them. Once you tried to take your own mission loot, you ended up being flagged to them, and they would come and gank you.

And this was bad in what way?

CONCORD provide consequences, not safety; only you can do that.

Now - this isn't right. - by Virgo I'Platonicus

Sat, 21 Jun 2009 23:07:00 +0000

So?
A number of petitions was written to help instance the mission deadspace? So like lol: an agent sends you to a distress beacon where some"pirates" are holding a girl but in reality the mission runner already owns the pirates no matter who shoots them now?
D- for logical game mechanics on this one CCP.
Same goes to Overheating = stack penalized. Great thinking. If you fit your ship with 4 modules of same type (like heat sinks or any weapon upgrades) overheating doesnt give you the neccesary 20 or 30%. It's stacking penalized. There's another D- for logic CCP.
CCP= crowd control production? Maybe it should be PCC = Production crowd controlled.

V.
<3

Now - this isn't right. - by CCP Explorer

Sat, 21 Jun 2009 22:57:00 +0000

Originally by: JamnOne
why this change if I may ask?

This change was made in Trinity 1.1. It was possible for griefers to kill your mission NPCs, causing the loot cans to be tagged to them. Once you tried to take your own mission loot, you ended up being flagged to them, and they would come and gank you.

Erlendur S. Thorsteinsson
Software Director
EVE Online, CCP Games

Now - this isn't right. - by Surfin's PlunderBunny

Sat, 21 Jun 2009 21:50:00 +0000

Who cares anyway? He's in a noob ship, what's he gonna do?

You're not afraid of the dark, are you?

Now - this isn't right. - by JamnOne

Sat, 21 Jun 2009 21:17:00 +0000

For those who said read the patch notes - I did and didn't see it in there.

Amateratsu - thank you for the link. I should have checked the Missions forum first. Sorry

CCP Explorer - Wow, I have a blue bar in one of my threads. Anyways, why this change if I may ask?
________________________

Originally by: CCP Wrangler
So, it's all my fault.

Originally by: CCP Prism X
Hah! Vengeance is sweet!

Now - this isn't right. - by CCP Explorer

Sat, 21 Jun 2009 19:29:00 +0000

The mission owner owns all wrecks.

Erlendur S. Thorsteinsson
Software Director
EVE Online, CCP Games

Now - this isn't right. - by Faife

Sat, 21 Jun 2009 18:18:00 +0000

Originally by: Zantrei Kordisin
Of course, you read the patch notes for the last few patches? I suggest you try it. It's a whole new source of information.

snippy, but true. check them out

Now - this isn't right. - by Amateratsu

Sat, 21 Jun 2009 18:15:00 +0000

All mission wrecks belong to the mission owner. regardless of who killed the rats.

Read Me

Now - this isn't right. - by Naomi Wildfire

Sat, 21 Jun 2009 18:14:00 +0000

I agree, this was mentioned in a patch note

Now - this isn't right. - by Zantrei Kordisin

Sat, 21 Jun 2009 18:10:00 +0000

Of course, you read the patch notes for the last few patches? I suggest you try it. It's a whole new source of information.
_________________________________________________________

Now - this isn't right. - by Tortun Nahme

Sat, 21 Jun 2009 18:05:00 +0000

definately odd behavior then, I would bug report it, no one likes to have an agro timer from helping someone

Originally by: Cecil Montague
They should change that warning on entering low sec to:

"Go read Crime and Punishment for a few days then come back."

Now - this isn't right. - by JamnOne

Sat, 21 Jun 2009 18:02:00 +0000

Originally by: Tortun Nahme
as lnog as you are still ganged and on the same grid, its probably a false positive, otherwise the wrecks you are looting have to be ones he killed

But he didn't kill any of them. He has even told me I am flashy red to him.

If he killed some of them I would fully agree and not worry about it. But he is just hanging out.

________________________

Originally by: CCP Wrangler
So, it's all my fault.

Originally by: CCP Prism X
Hah! Vengeance is sweet!

Now - this isn't right. - by Asestorian

Sat, 21 Jun 2009 18:00:00 +0000

Interesting. Perhaps it's associating the cans with the owner of the mission, rather than who killing the NPCs?

---

Quote:
EVE is unfair by design.

Now - this isn't right. - by Tortun Nahme

Sat, 21 Jun 2009 18:00:00 +0000

as lnog as you are still ganged and on the same grid, its probably a false positive, otherwise the wrecks you are looting have to be ones he killed

Originally by: Cecil Montague
They should change that warning on entering low sec to:

"Go read Crime and Punishment for a few days then come back."

Now - this isn't right. - by JamnOne

Sat, 21 Jun 2009 17:59:00 +0000

Ok, so I am helping a player in an NPC/New Player Corp. We are running missions in and around Youl. He got popped so he is flying his noob ship and I do the killing. He gets what he needs out of the mission and I get my loot.

Well, the problem is when I try to collect my loot from the wrecks it says I am stealing frm him and his corp but he doesn't even fire a shot. He just hangs out and watches me kill everything.

Has anybody else seen this?
________________________

Originally by: CCP Wrangler
So, it's all my fault.

Originally by: CCP Prism X
Hah! Vengeance is sweet!