Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
I3igJo
House CHOAM Honourable Templum of Alcedonia
|
Posted - 2010.04.08 17:44:00 -
[31]
I think the best way to avoid them is to do missions somewhere else, at quieter space. Piracy is piracy. that's the beautful part of this game where other game fail. Please resize your signature to the maximum allowed of 400 x 120 pixels with a maximum file size of 24000 bytes. Adida |
Serpents smile
|
Posted - 2010.04.08 17:45:00 -
[32]
Originally by: Herr Wilkus
If somebody comes into your mission and steals your mission item you are allowed to pop them. Lock up the invader when they enter the mission. If they steal your mission item, warp scramble them and open fire. Concord will not intervene because they are flagged. You may even get a KM out of the deal.
So...whats the problem again?
Uhm, until you open the can the mission item is in, it's fair game to anybody who enters the dead space complex. When you enter the mission there is nothing, repeat nothing, that is flagged as yours, until you perform an action on it. Stealing loot from ships you shot however gets you flagged, but stealing the mission item, not that I'm aware off.
|
Tippia
Reikoku IT Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.04.08 17:50:00 -
[33]
Dammit. I hate arriving in a thread when all the good arguments have already been made.
Anyway: No. OP presents no useful reason why this needs to be changed. ——— “If you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡… you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.” — Karath Piki |
tribalfreak
|
Posted - 2010.04.08 17:54:00 -
[34]
me being a mission runner, you know what i would do? simply wait until the next day, by whitch time, the target would have respawned. (they DO reappear after maintenance right?). no there's no denying that something like this would be a real pain, but with 6 days to beat the mission, i doubt your luck would be THAT bad to have it happen to you 6 times. of course you lose your time bonus but i rather lose my bonus than my standings.
|
Skex Relbore
|
Posted - 2010.04.08 17:58:00 -
[35]
Originally by: Tippia Dammit. I hate arriving in a thread when all the good arguments have already been made.
Anyway: No. OP presents no useful reason why this needs to be changed.
I think that if you aren't in the gang with the person who has the mission then taking the completion item should set an agression flag so that the mission runner at least has the option of fighting for their property.
Not that I expect you to agree since you seem to object to any changes that allow the victims a chance to fight back.
|
Tippia
Reikoku IT Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.04.08 18:02:00 -
[36]
Originally by: Skex Relbore I think that if you aren't in the gang with the person who has the mission then taking the completion item should set an agression flag so that the mission runner at least has the option of fighting for their property.
Not that I expect you to agree since you seem to object to any changes that allow the victims a chance to fight back.
If the thief could get the item, then so could the mission runner – if it was so important to him, then why didn't he go and get it already? In other words, no I don't object to giving them a chance to fight back – in fact, I think they already do, and have chosen not to. ——— “If you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡… you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.” — Karath Piki |
Boomershoot
Caldari Suddenly Ninjas
|
Posted - 2010.04.08 18:04:00 -
[37]
Originally by: Cambarus
Originally by: Serpents smile
Originally by: Savatar Mei wont the mission respawn during downtime? not to sure tbh, sometimes the mission item can be bought on the market...
Once the mission objective has been cleared it will not re spawn. And you'll not find a damsel in distress on the market floor.
(cough)
You can petition to have the mission reset though, there have been times where I've managed to lose/trash a needed item for a mission, I tell this to a GM, he resets the mission, problem solved.
Exploiting the Petition System 101 ITT.
If the mission item is offered you back you should not get your mission reset. That's all.
|
I3igJo
House CHOAM Honourable Templum of Alcedonia
|
Posted - 2010.04.08 18:06:00 -
[38]
Originally by: tribalfreak me being a mission runner, you know what i would do? simply wait until the next day, by whitch time, the target would have respawned. (they DO reappear after maintenance right?). no there's no denying that something like this would be a real pain, but with 6 days to beat the mission, i doubt your luck would be THAT bad to have it happen to you 6 times. of course you lose your time bonus but i rather lose my bonus than my standings.
That's the best solution IMO. Please resize your signature to the maximum allowed of 400 x 120 pixels with a maximum file size of 24000 bytes. Adida |
Serpents smile
|
Posted - 2010.04.08 18:06:00 -
[39]
Originally by: tribalfreak me being a mission runner, you know what i would do? simply wait until the next day, by whitch time, the target would have respawned. (they DO reappear after maintenance right?). no there's no denying that something like this would be a real pain, but with 6 days to beat the mission, i doubt your luck would be THAT bad to have it happen to you 6 times. of course you lose your time bonus but i rather lose my bonus than my standings.
(Sigh) Somehow I feel I've been drifting through space for nearly 50 years and IQ has suddenly dropped.
You do not need to wait an whole day, just log back in after DT, that is
****IF****
the mission objective hasn't been taken/ shot/ gotten close to (think that sums up the narrowness down what you can do in missions). Because if it has, the mission is completed whether or not you or someone else, got the item, shot the thing, got near to a certain point, that completed the mission.
|
Aqriue
|
Posted - 2010.04.08 18:19:00 -
[40]
When dealing with ninja's and theives, your best option is: 1. Check DScan often 2. As soon as you see probes, move down a size (450 million kms 3au, 300 million 2 au) 3. You got company visiting. Clean up after youself (pop wrecks/mission item if to far) 4. ??? 5. PROFIT!!! You just wasted valuable time that ninja spent scanning you down.
I love watching ninjas try to rush to a single wreck 50kms away while I worker on another BS, then pop it as they get to it denying them the salvage. They then try to get to second wreck you just made, pop it as they get to it . Rinse and repeat as you make that ninja dance like a puppet on strings .
Never pay ransoms for mission items they stole, show them how unprofitable it is to scan you down for a mission that you can easily abandoned and recoup the standing back with another 3 from the same agent netting more bounty in the process.
|
|
Skex Relbore
|
Posted - 2010.04.08 18:31:00 -
[41]
Edited by: Skex Relbore on 08/04/2010 18:32:36
Originally by: Tippia
Originally by: Skex Relbore I think that if you aren't in the gang with the person who has the mission then taking the completion item should set an agression flag so that the mission runner at least has the option of fighting for their property.
Not that I expect you to agree since you seem to object to any changes that allow the victims a chance to fight back.
If the thief could get the item, then so could the mission runner û if it was so important to him, then why didn't he go and get it already? In other words, no I don't object to giving them a chance to fight back û in fact, I think they already do, and have chosen not to.
Yes because it's such a fair race between a battleship and a frigate stealing your mission item.
The fact is that sometimes it is nessesary to travel to the mission completion item prior to picking it up. So no you do not believe in the right of the victim to fight back.
You're solutions are always carebear "just salvage faster" "just loot faster" Why can't it be blow them the F up. Yeah they might come back for me in their PVP fit uber ship so effing what? at least I get to choose whether or not to take the chance rather than letting the theives hide behind Concords skirts.
Ransoming is an unlawful act taking a mission completion item is interfering with someone doing completing a contractual arangement.
When A corporation hires you in EVE to say "go rescue a damsel" or go retrieve our Quafe recipee from these criminals you are engaged in a legally sanctioned activity. The person who swoops in at the last minute and snatches the item/damsel is no different from the criminals you were contracted to retrieve the item from in the first place and as such should not be granted any more protection by the authorities (Concord) than were the original theives (rats).
Now I can see Concord saying "no we're not going to blow up the theif" that's not what they do but they shouldn't defend the theif just as they don't defend an ore theif or anyone else engaged in a criminal act.
To all the folks who say you should shoot them have fun when Concord blows your ship out from under you (and you still have to pay the ransom to get the item) and no you can't go in after downtime and do it again because the mission will be flagged complete and won't respawn. There is only one damsel while more pirates might be brought in tomorrow to defend their facilities if you fail to complete the mission objective once she's rescued that she doesn't majically respawn the next day.
As I said I support the ability and right of the missionrunner to defend their livelyhood and fight back against theives as they so choose. So putting the exact same damned flag on mission completion items/containers as every other effing loot canister in the mission space makes perfect effing sense.
If you complete the nesesary action to make the item available it should be flagged as your property and if someone comes along and picks it up they are a theif and can be dealt with in the same manner as somoene who comes and loots your wrecks.
|
Tippia
Reikoku IT Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.04.08 18:35:00 -
[42]
Originally by: Skex Relbore Yes because it's such a fair race between a battleship and a frigate stealing your mission item.
Pretty much, yes, seeing as how the battleship is in far better control over where and when the thing will appear…
…oh, and the fact that no-one is forcing you to use a battleship.
Quote: You're solutions are always carebear "just salvage faster" "just loot faster" Why can't it be blow them the F up.
Because to maintain parity, you'd have to allow the thieves to blow the mission-runner up as well, and realistically, this is not something mission-runners want. ——— “If you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡… you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.” — Karath Piki |
Skex Relbore
|
Posted - 2010.04.08 18:58:00 -
[43]
Originally by: Tippia
Originally by: Skex Relbore Yes because it's such a fair race between a battleship and a frigate stealing your mission item.
Pretty much, yes, seeing as how the battleship is in far better control over where and when the thing will appearà
àoh, and the fact that no-one is forcing you to use a battleship.
Quote: You're solutions are always carebear "just salvage faster" "just loot faster" Why can't it be blow them the F up.
Because to maintain parity, you'd have to allow the thieves to blow the mission-runner up as well, and realistically, this is not something mission-runners want.
No you wouldn't. Because parity exists based on the fact that if the mission runner were to steel something from the mission invader then they'd be commiting a criminal act and would then surender their Concord protection.
There is parity because the rules are consistent for all parties. If you steal you are flagged as a criminal and the agreived party has been granted the right to take corrective action. If the agrieved party takes such action the theif is allowed their right to self defense and won't be concorded for retaliating.
The situation as it stands now completely favors the mission theif and leaves the mission runner no recourse other than to try to make sure that they are always with in loot range of the mission completion item when they complete said mission or to pay the ransom (which often is far in excess of the value of the mission to begin with).
|
Hakaru Ishiwara
Minmatar Republic Military School
|
Posted - 2010.04.08 19:00:00 -
[44]
Originally by: Aqriue When dealing with ninja's and theives, your best option is: 1. Check DScan often 2. As soon as you see probes, move down a size (450 million kms 3au, 300 million 2 au) 3. You got company visiting. Clean up after youself (pop wrecks/mission item if to far) 4. ??? 5. PROFIT!!! You just wasted valuable time that ninja spent scanning you down.
I love watching ninjas try to rush to a single wreck 50kms away while I worker on another BS, then pop it as they get to it denying them the salvage. They then try to get to second wreck you just made, pop it as they get to it . Rinse and repeat as you make that ninja dance like a puppet on strings .
Never pay ransoms for mission items they stole, show them how unprofitable it is to scan you down for a mission that you can easily abandoned and recoup the standing back with another 3 from the same agent netting more bounty in the process.
This. I love it.
May I also add that warping out of the mission site and letting the ninja ship grab aggro from the NPC spawns is delicious. 'Oh, your tank just left the building and your shields just evaporated?'
|
Bongo Debbie
Minmatar Trillionaire High-Rollers Suicidal Bassoon Orkesta
|
Posted - 2010.04.08 19:04:00 -
[45]
Originally by: Serpents smile
Originally by: Bongo Debbie Missions are boring and not a good way of making money.
I agree with the boring part but what the heck do you mean with the rest of that part I quoted? You are so, dead, wrong.
I mean there are far better ways of making ISK than grinding missions. It's a subpar income in my opinion. ----
|
Tippia
Reikoku IT Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.04.08 19:41:00 -
[46]
Originally by: Skex Relbore There is parity because the rules are consistent for all parties.
Exactly. So why do you want to add imparity? Why do you want to give mission runners an advantage they don't particularly need?
Quote: The situation as it stands now completely favors the mission theif
How so? ——— “If you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡… you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.” — Karath Piki |
Alaura Aquila
Minmatar JOKAS Industries
|
Posted - 2010.04.08 20:01:00 -
[47]
Originally by: Abrazzar Mission theft should work like this: You scan down a mission runner at a mission location and manage to fill the mission objective before the mission runner, either by blowing up more ships (bounty wise) in a kill mission or acquiring the mission objective item. If that happens, the agent will contact you and offer you the reward and the mission runner will end up empty handed.
This would be mission theft. Everything else is just bawbawbaw.
I like this idea... would be a nice twist, but the database would probably explode handling all the new data, since it seems unstable as it is.
|
Skex Relbore
|
Posted - 2010.04.08 20:11:00 -
[48]
Originally by: Tippia
Originally by: Skex Relbore There is parity because the rules are consistent for all parties.
Exactly. So why do you want to add imparity? Why do you want to give mission runners an advantage they don't particularly need?
Quote: The situation as it stands now completely favors the mission theif
How so?
It seems I failed to properly communicate.
If things were changed to make looting a mission objective a criminal act then there would be parity because the consequences are the same for commiting a criminal act.
As it stands now there is no parity because the theif in this case is being granted protection from the consequences of his actions.
What is silly is your demand that both criminals and legal actors should be treated identically. That's not the way things normally are done. The mission thief has invaded a mission with the sole purpose of interfering with the mission runners ability to complete his contract. They are the agressor in this sitaution they are the ones who are in violation of the law by engaging in a crimial act. Engaging in a criminal act has different consequences than acting to complete a legitimate contract.
Pirates and theives are by definition criminals and it is not at all unreasonable that they should be treated as such. Just because these are acceptable activities within the game mechanics does not mean that the choice to engage in criminal activities should be protected from consequence.
In too many cases in this game criminal activity is protected and that is simply unreasonable. People even 20,000 years from now would not accept such a situation. And it break immersion when such a silly situation exists.
We have a universe where crime is rampant and individual actors will launch suicide attacks against industrial and transport crafts yet in this hostile environment the manufacturers of these ships have taken no steps to beef these vessels up?
Allowing criminal behaviour as a valid playstyle is one thing, rigging the rules to favor that playstyle over all others is what is unreasonable.
In too many cases in this game those who behave like normal well adjusted human animals are put at a disadvantage to the sociopaths. This is just makes no sense. Societies take steps to protect themselves from such behaviors that's why we have prisons and assylums and police forces.
Flimsy industrial ships which enable near cost free suicide ganking. Concord providing protection for activities that any normal human being would consider crimial.
If this were a real universe the industrial ships would be armed and armored to the teeth. They'd have huge tanks and plenty of drones to defend themselves, They'd definitely be tough enough to hold together long enough for help to arive.
Hell you can't even escort these craft because they aren't beefy enough to live long eough for assistance to be granted.
High sec is supposed to be a safer place for those who are in compliance with the law it is perfectly reasonable that the mechanics in these systems should favor those who do not engage in criminal behavior.
Right now where is the parity of a consequence for the mission thief? As long as they do not loot anything other than the mission objective they recieve concord protection the person who is facing loss of standings and income unless they surender to the blackmail has no recourse if they attempt to destroy the theif they will loose their ship. if they refuse to pay the ransom they will loss faction standing with the agent they are working for which will reduce their potential income.
What negative consequences to the theif? None.
|
Gottii
Minmatar Re-Awakened Technologies Inc
|
Posted - 2010.04.08 20:25:00 -
[49]
Originally by: Skex Relbore
Originally by: Tippia
Originally by: Skex Relbore There is parity because the rules are consistent for all parties.
Exactly. So why do you want to add imparity? Why do you want to give mission runners an advantage they don't particularly need?
Quote: The situation as it stands now completely favors the mission theif
How so?
It seems I failed to properly communicate.
If things were changed to make looting a mission objective a criminal act then there would be parity because the consequences are the same for commiting a criminal act.
As it stands now there is no parity because the theif in this case is being granted protection from the consequences of his actions.
What is silly is your demand that both criminals and legal actors should be treated identically. That's not the way things normally are done. The mission thief has invaded a mission with the sole purpose of interfering with the mission runners ability to complete his contract. They are the agressor in this sitaution they are the ones who are in violation of the law by engaging in a crimial act. Engaging in a criminal act has different consequences than acting to complete a legitimate contract.
Pirates and theives are by definition criminals and it is not at all unreasonable that they should be treated as such. Just because these are acceptable activities within the game mechanics does not mean that the choice to engage in criminal activities should be protected from consequence.
In too many cases in this game criminal activity is protected and that is simply unreasonable. People even 20,000 years from now would not accept such a situation. And it break immersion when such a silly situation exists.
We have a universe where crime is rampant and individual actors will launch suicide attacks against industrial and transport crafts yet in this hostile environment the manufacturers of these ships have taken no steps to beef these vessels up?
Allowing criminal behaviour as a valid playstyle is one thing, rigging the rules to favor that playstyle over all others is what is unreasonable.
In too many cases in this game those who behave like normal well adjusted human animals are put at a disadvantage to the sociopaths. This is just makes no sense. Societies take steps to protect themselves from such behaviors that's why we have prisons and assylums and police forces.
Flimsy industrial ships which enable near cost free suicide ganking. Concord providing protection for activities that any normal human being would consider crimial.
If this were a real universe the industrial ships would be armed and armored to the teeth. They'd have huge tanks and plenty of drones to defend themselves, They'd definitely be tough enough to hold together long enough for help to arive.
Hell you can't even escort these craft because they aren't beefy enough to live long eough for assistance to be granted.
High sec is supposed to be a safer place for those who are in compliance with the law it is perfectly reasonable that the mechanics in these systems should favor those who do not engage in criminal behavior.
Right now where is the parity of a consequence for the mission thief? As long as they do not loot anything other than the mission objective they recieve concord protection the person who is facing loss of standings and income unless they surender to the blackmail has no recourse if they attempt to destroy the theif they will loose their ship. if they refuse to pay the ransom they will loss faction standing with the agent they are working for which will reduce their potential income.
What negative consequences to the theif? None.
This dark, gritty, brutal, evil, cruel world you describe....sounds a lot like the EvE universe described in the flavor text.
Just saying...
|
Aera Aiana
|
Posted - 2010.04.08 20:35:00 -
[50]
Originally by: Tippia If the thief could get the item, then so could the mission runner û if it was so important to him, then why didn't he go and get it already? In other words, no I don't object to giving them a chance to fight back û in fact, I think they already do, and have chosen not to.
Yes because Battleships usually outrun frigates, the skies are green and your kids grow on purple trees ...
Originally by: Tippia Pretty much, yes, seeing as how the battleship is in far better control over where and when the thing will appear
... and battleships pop stuff in melee range, large guns have faster tracking then small ones and the damsel really is a virgin ...
Originally by: Tippia Why do you want to give mission runners an advantage they don't particularly need?
What advantage? The advantage to get the right to shoot at somebody's PVP fit while sitting in a mission fit? Wow, now that would be so unfair towards the poor pirate. Not to mention that it would actually take some little amount of guts to steal stuff if there's a chance to be punished (by a puny little missionrunner in a missionfit and guns that couldn't hit you if you put your ship in parking-mode). But yeah, you really have to be afraid that CCP might change the system to actually get you flagged for theft. Maybe flagged for the agent so he can give a mission to blow you up?...
Originally by: Tippia
Originally by: Skex Relbore There is parity because the rules are consistent for all parties.
Exactly. So why do you want to add imparity? Why do you want to give mission runners an advantage they don't particularly need?
Quote: The situation as it stands now completely favors the mission theif
How so?
I'm kind of wondering if you're serious. I mean it doesn't take a rocketscientist to see the answer coming, so why do you ask for it? Anyway, it's right above my post. -
|
|
Tippia
Reikoku IT Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.04.08 20:39:00 -
[51]
Edited by: Tippia on 08/04/2010 20:43:41
Originally by: Skex Relbore If things were changed to make looting a mission objective a criminal act then there would be parity because the consequences are the same for commiting a criminal act.
Yes, and the question is why the two should be compared – why should there be parity between this and loot theft? Why is it so bad that the MR has to keep up with the competition over an obviously valuable resource?
Originally by: Aera Aiana Yes because Battleships usually outrun frigates
Why would they have to?
Quote: ... and battleships pop stuff in melee range, large guns have faster tracking then small ones and the damsel really is a virgin ...
Nope. But the MR is still in full control over where and when this precious item will appear.
Quote: What advantage?
Being allowed to fire if someone comes it and takes the item in question, but not being a target themselves under the same conditions.
Quote: I'm kind of wondering if you're serious. I mean it doesn't take a rocketscientist to see the answer coming, so why do you ask for it? Anyway, it's right above my post.
EVE is a dark and cruel world…? How does this make it completely favour the thief more than it favours the MR? ——— “If you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡… you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.” — Karath Piki |
Syril Mert
Another One Down
|
Posted - 2010.04.08 20:44:00 -
[52]
I've never had this problem, but I don't do missions in systems with 400+ players either.
|
Skex Relbore
|
Posted - 2010.04.08 21:04:00 -
[53]
Edited by: Skex Relbore on 08/04/2010 21:05:43
Originally by: Syril Mert I've never had this problem, but I don't do missions in systems with 400+ players either.
I've not had the problem either, Then again I've never been I've never had my house burgled either doesn't mean that should be legal.
And to Tippia's Cold harsh universe thing apparently you think it should only be a cold dark place for mission runners, miners and frieght haulers while Mission item theives and ninja salvagers get to hide behind Concords skirts and Suicide gankers should get insurance payments to subsidize their griefing.
Once again only a cold harsh universe for your victims while nothing but warmth and light and fluffy pillows for the griefers.
What are you afraid of? That if the "carebears" were given tools to fight back that you'd suddenly be facing carebears with fangs?
Once again here you are opposing an idea that would actually result in more combat (just like your opposition to making ninja salvaging flag for theft) while claiming to be some sort of hardcore PVPer.
Tell me who's really the carebear here?
|
Mr Epeen
|
Posted - 2010.04.08 21:25:00 -
[54]
Originally by: eliminator2
actually there was against lofty scam
dnt join there gang WALLA simple
WALLA!?!
It's voila you dolt!
Get an education, for God's sake.
Mr Epeen
|
Taxesarebad
|
Posted - 2010.04.08 21:45:00 -
[55]
Originally by: Mey Alman How about an RP solution:
Agent: Complete Mission, Abandon Mission, *** took the Item
Game checks if *** really has the item (Agents seem to have connections :) ) faction hit for *** for interfering with state matters --> mission complete (secret agents get the item back)
i like this idea, it makes sense. that or concord for stealing the mission loot ( no other loot) |
Taedrin
Gallente Xovoni Directorate
|
Posted - 2010.04.08 23:09:00 -
[56]
Originally by: Tippia
Originally by: Skex Relbore I think that if you aren't in the gang with the person who has the mission then taking the completion item should set an agression flag so that the mission runner at least has the option of fighting for their property.
Not that I expect you to agree since you seem to object to any changes that allow the victims a chance to fight back.
If the thief could get the item, then so could the mission runner û if it was so important to him, then why didn't he go and get it already? In other words, no I don't object to giving them a chance to fight back û in fact, I think they already do, and have chosen not to.
More importantly, if the thief can get the item, then why didn't the mission runner blitz the mission in a shuttle in the first place? ----------
Originally by: Dr Fighter "how do you know when youve had a repro accident"
Theres modules missing and morphite in your mineral pile.
|
ATheGreat
|
Posted - 2010.04.08 23:17:00 -
[57]
I can see whyt he OP may be frustrated, but its not like you are ocmpletely helpless
use eve-agents.com to find an agent somewhere more peaceful for starters!! Also even if you know the mission itself, the eve survival guide does tell you where and when the drop will occur, plan around expecting company if you get it alot..
It is an interesting point, and I do like the whole theif gets standing hit with said faction, but ultimately I doubt the theif could give a monkeys about such thing
I have been a victim of such thieves, but the key is to make things difficult for them, blow up wrecks, hell if you can see its about to happen, blow up the objective item before they get it
One of my favourite times was when a scanning frigate came in to mission space about 80km from me in my nightmare, stole from a can, and I was able to pop them
another time a corp mate was having trouble with one running to and fro taking loot, I just waited at acceleration gate, some distance away, again in the nightmare, and the tables were turned, it was me doing the ransoming!!
The sandbox point works both ways, you dont like something, then use the tools ccp give you to do something about it
|
Aqriue
|
Posted - 2010.04.08 23:24:00 -
[58]
Your not required to run a BS to missions. You could always train for a Tengu and make it unprobable or run in an Ishtar. Ninjas are a lazy creature, they search for the largest fattest bug on the scanner. Their filters will rarely be searching for Strategic Cruisers or HACs because it might require a little more effort to find.
Or you could just ignore the ninja and pop wrecks, don't bother looting everything. You can blitz 2 more missions in the time it takes to loot/salvage a single mission. And if they steal the mission objective, just ignore any contracts they send you (they do loose isk for canceling prematurely) and they won't always have another buyer available, hence more time wasted on their part. Its not profitable to them to farm missioners, its more profitable to farm missions themselves
|
klarno
|
Posted - 2010.04.09 00:37:00 -
[59]
You could just wait until after downtime and attempt the mission again. That way you get double loot/bounties. Also you could do missions with a fleet. I find eve is more enjoyable when the other players around me are my friends. It must depend on your friends though. Ninjas are definitly more fun than a lot of people.
|
Mr Kidd
|
Posted - 2010.04.09 00:42:00 -
[60]
Originally by: Boreanna I haven't been playing long, but I've discussed this with people who have been playing for years. It seems the problem started when probing was changed. For those of you who don't follow me, I'm referring to people probing you down, going into your mission and getting whatever item you need to complete it, then ransoming it to you for whatever they want to charge. If you don't pay, you will have to quit the mission and take a faction hit. Sure, we need piracy. The game wouldn't be fun without it. Take my money, sure. You're a pirate that's what you do. Some day when I grow up, I may want to be a pirate. THIS practice however takes away peoples ability to make money and is a game flaw that needs to be corrected. Most of the seasoned players I've talked to no longer do missions for that reason and I don't blame em. No one should be able to ruin someone's STANDINGS.That's just wrong. If probing someone into a mission can't or won't be changed, how about changing the items to things like 10 militants.Something cheap so that it's more about being flagged for having killed the final ship(s). There needs to be at least missions as a safe haven for making money and standings so you can get more ships to throw in the meat grinder. If you can't even do that, you can't play.
Was that you that I stole 276 units of Gamboge Cytoserocin from yesterday? If so or if not:
1) You should have been more prepared like not canning the stuff. 2) If you're talking about something like a damsel or the Heron Crew, why not grab it ASAP instead of waiting until you kill everything? Most missioners can tank a mission at least enough to grab the mission loot. 3) Why not just deal for it and be done with it? 4) If not #3 why not just quit the mission and be done with it? 5) If the standing is that big of a deal see #3. 6) You're wasting your breath. CCP is not going to end piracy. Besides, they don't want you missioning. They want you doing something more MMO like. Here I am trying to be a good MMO player by interacting with you and you rebuff me?
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |