Pages: [1] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Ashlar Maidstone
Ideal Empire Ideal Society
48
|
Posted - 2014.01.20 20:26:00 -
[1] - Quote
No complaining, ranting, or crying please ======================================================================================= As we all know there are times we go out to do some ratting and look for some easy kills in belts. Well we know there are three ways to find out if you can/cannot shoot at wrecks in belts in particular in hisec.
White=yours
Yellow= somebody else's wrecks
Blue= Free for all.
Now, I went out today for a bit to do some ratting and saw some BLUE wrecks that had already been empty out, so locking on one I proceeded to let a couple missiles loose and guess what, I get blown up by Concord.
Now, I had thought if a wreck was marked blue you could salvage or shoot it in hisec, and unless something was changed since I was away before then why am I getting shot and losing ships?? As far as I know I thought if it was blue you could do whatever but I guess not?? Any thoughts or ideas be appreciated.
FLY RECKLESS!! |
Kimmi Chan
Tastes Like Purple
681
|
Posted - 2014.01.20 20:29:00 -
[2] - Quote
Ashlar Maidstone wrote:No complaining, ranting, or crying please ======================================================================================= As we all know there are times we go out to do some ratting and look for some easy kills in belts. Well we know there are three ways to find out if you can/cannot shoot at wrecks in belts in particular in hisec. White=yours Yellow= somebody else's wrecks Blue= Free for all. Now, I went out today for a bit to do some ratting and saw some BLUE wrecks that had already been empty out, so locking on one I proceeded to let a couple missiles loose and guess what, I get blown up by Concord. Now, I had thought if a wreck was marked blue you could salvage or shoot it in hisec, and unless something was changed since I was away before then why am I getting shot and losing ships?? As far as I know I thought if it was blue you could do whatever but I guess not?? Any thoughts or ideas be appreciated. FLY RECKLESS!!
Why do you hate wrecks so much? "You should just create one thread and put all of your complaints in it instead of littering the forums with multiple threads." ~CCP Falcon
Paranoia never killed anyone. -áA complete absence of it has. |
Benny Ohu
Chaotic Tranquility Casoff
2231
|
Posted - 2014.01.20 20:29:00 -
[3] - Quote
I suggest turning the safety to yellow |
Billy McCandless
The McCandless Clan Turing Tested
11
|
Posted - 2014.01.20 20:31:00 -
[4] - Quote
Ashlar Maidstone wrote:No complaining, ranting, or crying please ======================================================================================= Any thoughts or ideas be appreciated.
The Three Laws are: A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm. A robot must obey the orders given to it by human beings, except where such orders would conflict with the First Law. A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.
Asimov believed that, ideally, humans would also follow the Laws: "I have my answer ready whenever someone asks me if I think that my Three Laws of Robotics will actually be used to govern the behavior of robots, once they become versatile and flexible enough to able to choose among different courses of behavior. My answer is, "Yes, the Three Laws are the only way in which rational human beings can deal with robotsGÇöor with anything else." GÇöBut when I say that, I always remember (sadly) that human beings are not always rational." |
Unsuccessful At Everything
The Troll Bridge
9304
|
Posted - 2014.01.20 21:19:00 -
[5] - Quote
The safety button is not there so you cannot hurt others, it is there so people like you cannot hurt themselves.
Since the cessation of their usefulness is imminent, may I appropriate your belongings? |
Khergit Deserters
Crom's Angels
2648
|
Posted - 2014.01.20 21:23:00 -
[6] - Quote
CONCORD, you should just admit to OP that you messed up. Instead of hiring all of these posters to cover for you. |
Hasikan Miallok
Republic University Minmatar Republic
172
|
Posted - 2014.01.20 22:21:00 -
[7] - Quote
Amusing how when people have no understanding of things they just troll. Its a revealing insight into how real world politics works.
I am pretty sure even some "white" wrecks are un-shootable if you are in a fleet. Basically the game tags you as the owner of the wreck and nothing can change that status.
The most reasonable explanation of why the game works this way is that because a blue wreck is still your wreck, allowing people to shoot it would lead to an exploit where you could keep a limited engagement going for 2 hours (at which point the remaining wrecks would disappear).
In essence the problem is not the Concord mechanic, the problem arises because the game tags the blue wreck as still "belonging" to the original owner.
|
Vincent Athena
V.I.C.E.
2612
|
Posted - 2014.01.20 22:49:00 -
[8] - Quote
Ashlar Maidstone wrote:No complaining, ranting, or crying please ======================================================================================= As we all know there are times we go out to do some ratting and look for some easy kills in belts. Well we know there are three ways to find out if you can/cannot shoot at wrecks in belts in particular in hisec. White=yours Yellow= somebody else's wrecks Blue= Free for all. Now, I went out today for a bit to do some ratting and saw some BLUE wrecks that had already been empty out, so locking on one I proceeded to let a couple missiles loose and guess what, I get blown up by Concord. Now, I had thought if a wreck was marked blue you could salvage or shoot it in hisec, and unless something was changed since I was away before then why am I getting shot and losing ships?? As far as I know I thought if it was blue you could do whatever but I guess not?? Any thoughts or ideas be appreciated. FLY RECKLESS!! A blue wreck is still the property of the one who made it. As such shooting it calls CONCORD. The owner has given everyone permission to loot it, but in CONCORD's eyes its still his wreck. Irrelevant of wreck color, you can salvage without legal consequences. http://vincentoneve.wordpress.com/ |
Tau Cabalander
Retirement Retreat Working Stiffs
3095
|
Posted - 2014.01.20 22:54:00 -
[9] - Quote
Blue = Free to loot, not free to shoot.
If you can legally attack the owner, you can legally attack the container. |
Ashlar Maidstone
Ideal Empire Ideal Society
48
|
Posted - 2014.01.21 00:43:00 -
[10] - Quote
@ Vincent, that makes a lot of sense, thank you sir,
@ Tau, that's a good point, thank you sir.
FLY RECKLESS!! |
|
Erotica 1
Krypteia Operations CODE.
3267
|
Posted - 2014.01.21 01:43:00 -
[11] - Quote
government buildings, roads, bridges... they are all there for us to share. Blow one up and you're going to prison. See Bio for isk doubling rules. If you didn't read bio, chances are you funded those who did. |
Katran Luftschreck
Royal Ammatar Engineering Corps
2226
|
Posted - 2014.01.21 03:10:00 -
[12] - Quote
Billy McCandless wrote:The Three Laws are: A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm. A robot must obey the orders given to it by human beings, except where such orders would conflict with the First Law. A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law."
Unrelated: I always felt that the 2nd and 3rd law should switch places. I don't like the idea of an robot being forced to commit suicide just because some dumb redneck can't stand the idea that a machine is a hundred times smarter than him.
Vincent Athena wrote:A blue wreck is still the property of the one who made it. As such shooting it calls CONCORD. The owner has given everyone permission to loot it, but in CONCORD's eyes its still his wreck. Irrelevant of wreck color, you can salvage without legal consequences.
Yeah, next time she should try shooting wrecks with Salvagers instead. Removes the wreck, doesn't call in CONCORD and might actually make her some ISK while she's at it.
Nullsec in a Nutshell: http://nedroid.com/comics/2006-08-24-2155-arrrdino.gif |
Hasikan Miallok
Republic University Minmatar Republic
175
|
Posted - 2014.01.21 03:30:00 -
[13] - Quote
Billy McCandless wrote:Ashlar Maidstone wrote:No complaining, ranting, or crying please ======================================================================================= Any thoughts or ideas be appreciated.
The Three Laws are: A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm. A robot must obey the orders given to it by human beings, except where such orders would conflict with the First Law. A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law. Asimov believed that, ideally, humans would also follow the Laws: "I have my answer ready whenever someone asks me if I think that my Three Laws of Robotics will actually be used to govern the behavior of robots, once they become versatile and flexible enough to able to choose among different courses of behavior. My answer is, "Yes, the Three Laws are the only way in which rational human beings can deal with robotsGÇöor with anything else." GÇöBut when I say that, I always remember (sadly) that human beings are not always rational."
Well given with the obsession of the modern legal system with protection of property, especially corporate property (if you throw your girlfriend through a shop window you are more likely to get jail time for damaging the Window in many jurisdictions) , there in reality needs to be a 0th law above all the others saying "Where the robot is the property of an individual, company or other incorporated body the robot shall at all times protect its owners property rights above all else" . |
Katran Luftschreck
Royal Ammatar Engineering Corps
2226
|
Posted - 2014.01.21 05:49:00 -
[14] - Quote
Actually the "Zeroeth Law" was to protect the most humans as possible, even if it means sacrificing the few to save the many.
Of course, only one robot ever had that law. Nullsec in a Nutshell: http://nedroid.com/comics/2006-08-24-2155-arrrdino.gif |
Liafcipe9000
Critically Preposterous
13789
|
Posted - 2014.01.21 08:51:00 -
[15] - Quote
Inability to understand EVE, Case #1234567890987654321. Frostys Virpio > CCP: Continously Crying Playerbase Felicity Love >... was thinking "moar popcorn"... but now, seeing the truly awesome contribution this thread is going to make to the Greater Glory Of EVE.... imagonnamakkadapizza....
|
Billy McCandless
The McCandless Clan Turing Tested
29
|
Posted - 2014.01.21 09:37:00 -
[16] - Quote
Hasikan Miallok wrote:
Well given with the obsession of the modern legal system with protection of property, especially corporate property (if you throw your girlfriend through a shop window you are more likely to get jail time for damaging the Window in many jurisdictions) , there in reality needs to be a 0th law above all the others saying "Where the robot is the property of an individual, company or other incorporated body the robot shall at all times protect its owners property rights above all else" .
That law would not be within the spirit, reason or concept of the others and would interfere with the protocols set by previous laws.
|
Angelica Dreamstar
Epic Boo Bees
223
|
Posted - 2014.01.21 09:47:00 -
[17] - Quote
When something belongs to everybody, you believe you can destroy it and thus take it from everybody else? Create a new, pretty, female character! Make the name count! Join the epic boo bees! (RP,PvE/PvP,wardecs,new players!) You're at it from day 0! |
Abdiel Kavash
Paladin Order Fidelas Constans
2677
|
Posted - 2014.01.21 09:54:00 -
[18] - Quote
Katran Luftschreck wrote:Unrelated: I always felt that the 2nd and 3rd law should switch places. I don't like the idea of an robot being forced to commit suicide just because some dumb redneck can't stand the idea that a machine is a hundred times smarter than him. This would mean that humans may not order robots to perform dangerous or even potentially destructive tasks - hazardous materials handling being a prime example. You use robots precisely because the conditions are unsuitable for human beings, having a robot decline to work because it's too dangerous would defeat the point. And it may be in some cases necessary to sacrifice a robot to save an industry (but not necessarily human life).
I recall there being some explanation of preventing the "kill yourself" scenario given in one of the stories, but I don't remember the specifics. It had to do something with specifically defining what is and is not a valid order and who it can come from. I.e. if you see a robot passing by and just yell "kill yourself" at it, it doesn't interpret that as an order for the purpose of the second law. |
seth Hendar
I love you miners
399
|
Posted - 2014.01.21 10:03:00 -
[19] - Quote
Unsuccessful At Everything wrote:The safety button is not there so you cannot hurt others, it is there so people like you cannot hurt themselves.
yeah, pretty much like a 'don't try to stop the blade with your hand " on a chainsaw.
i still wondered why this was even necessary in the first place.......... |
Billy McCandless
The McCandless Clan Turing Tested
30
|
Posted - 2014.01.21 10:06:00 -
[20] - Quote
seth Hendar wrote:Unsuccessful At Everything wrote:The safety button is not there so you cannot hurt others, it is there so people like you cannot hurt themselves.
yeah, pretty much like a 'don't try to stop the blade with your hand " on a chainsaw. i still wondered why this was even necessary in the first place..........
It has drastically reduced Smartbomb-related fatalities in highsec |
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |