Mission running in starter systems: no MTU, fast Wreck expiry?

Can something be done about the restrictions of starter systems in regards of mission running?

For example, I’m running Lvl 4 missions for an agent in Isendeldik and frequently get missions in Ammold. That is a bit annoying, because:

  • Wrecks and Loot disappear after roughly 30 minutes, not 2h as in normal systems
  • It is not possible to deploy an MTU or Mobile Depot

Sometimes I just want to relax after a mission and clean up the leftovers of a mission with a Noctis on the same character.

Regarding MTU and Mobile Depots: While I understand the restrictions to avoid mass deployment of depots or containers for corp advertisement, I don’t see a reason to deny this in mission pockets. Wouldn’t it be enough to restrict such deployments around Stargates, Stations and Citadels?

If it is too hard to change, maybe just exclude starter systems from the list of candidates for mission pockets?


So decline missions that send you there…is that too hard?

Why are you doing missions in starter systems? Clearly having a noctis will show that you are not a rookie so therefore any protections a rookie would get from griefing wouldnt apply to you.

No, it’s not too hard. Except that I sell things in a Six Kin station and therefore prefer to maintain high standings with them for lower broker fees. Denying missions all the time is not helpful for that.

I just think it wasn’t intended by CCP to have Level 4 mission pockets in starter systems. If it is too difficult for them to change that, I won’t cry a river either. Just one of these small things where a QoL change seems to possible with reasonable efford (again, cannot judge).

It is not my intention to play Level 4 missions in starter systems. That was the point of my post. The Level 4 agent is one jump out in Isendeldik, a normal system, but sends me to Ammold frequently. I think there are also some other places where a Level 4 agent can send you into a starter system.

I’m playing Eve long enough to not need the anti-griefing protection of a starter system. If gankers want to gank my cheap Noctis, fine, it’s part of the game. But I guess the loot you can expect from a Noctis in Highsec is not really worthwhile for gankers. There are enough blingy mission ships to gank…

The Devs clearly know how to deny the deployment of MTU around stargates. In normal space, it is something like 50km. So, since they clearly are able to identify starter systems by blocking MTU, they should know how to restrict the deployment of MTU to whatever distance far enough from structures/stations/stargates and orbital bodies, that it won’t appear in the overview + some buffer. Is 100k km enough? 1mil km? What distance is a good compromise?
And I’m sure the Devs can also identify “mission pockets” (mission encounters)

I currently am on an alt n Akiainavas, in Caldari space. Just outside the station I see 18 small, large and giant secure containers with advertisement, within 100 to 11000km outside the station. And I saw some at asteroid belts as well. So it appears the Devs didn’t prevent all type of containers.

that’s not a starter system …


Career agent system is not the same as starter system

So thats why you see what you do.

1 Like

DEVs won’t touch the old mission/agent code with a 10foot pole I believe. Best solutions are:

  • skip the looting for those missions in the starter/career system. It’s not like looting L4 in HighSec is worth it anyway. It’s mostly wasted ISK because you would earn more by just flying another L4 in the time you spend looting, which would give you more money in the end than you would have looted. And yes, that also applies if one uses the loot/salvage for production.
  • change running location to an agent that does not send you into such systems.
1 Like

That MTU/Mobile Depot restriction is not even that old, maybe 2 years? Meaning it’s not too old to mess with or just undo.

It was kind of a lazy solution to the advertisement spam. Why not just disable the renaming of all that stuff? Is there a good reason to set a name for an MTU or Mobile Depot apart from corp advertisement or “I was here” messages?

And thanks for the suggestions like “Don’t play missions there, don’t salvage, deny missions, isn’t worth anyway” and so on. It is a game and when I am in the mood to salvage, I will (at least try) to do so.

It’s not like I am trying to tell other people what to do and what not. It’s a sandbox, everyone is free to decide where to spend time and should not be restricted by game mechanics.

And when I am in the mood to play missions for Six Kin Development to increase my corp standings with them and grasp some nice stuff from their LP store, I will do so. By the way: The agent in Isendeldik is the only Level 4 security agent for this corp.

Well, then do it, you will just have to do it within 30 minutes in a Noctis with a lot of Tractorbeams I suppose… Of course other solutions to prevent the mobile spam would have been better from CCPs side, but you are right, they were simply lazy and I highly doubt they have any interest to invest development time into other solutions. I feel with you that the current state is miserable, but in all honesty there isn’t much to be done about it rather than working around it someway.

Ok, this topic can be closed now. It was meant as a small QoL suggestion towards CCP/CSM and now we are on the usual meme level.

Then maybe post/move it into the PlayerSuggestions/QoL section. CSM/AssemblyHall is usually for problems of a large scale that affect the game as a whole or at least large parts of the gameplay for the player community. But your “problem” is one that affects barely anyone and can be easily evaded by ways shown to you in the topic, so really nothing to bring to the big table in my opinion.

I mean, really, if you get one out of 5 or 10 missions in Ammold and just skip the looting for this one mission, thats basically the definion of a non-issue? It may annoy you, but the level of impact on the game is rather minor?

Never said that this is the biggest problem in Eve. Just thought that I may not be the only one who is wondering about the usefulness of these restrictions.

And apologies if my wording was offensive for anyone who tried to help out with suggesting workarounds. Wasn’t my intention.

Again, topic can be closed.

Closed by Request of the Op.