Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Lear Hepburn
Caldari Ascendant Strategies Inc. The Transcendent
|
Posted - 2009.05.17 14:20:00 -
[1]
Clearly people are not happy about salvage and how it works at the moment. My intent here is to suggest what I see as the options, talk about a few of the clear pros and cons, and hopefully promote some unbiased discussion about each. I will be talking solely about salvage of NPC wrecks (PvP is a different matter entirely) and how that works, but may compare it to other game mechanics such as loot and jetcans, which I see as a separate issue. I see there as being 4 options:
1. Wrecks are owned by the killer of the NPC. 2. Wrecks are unowned. 3. Wrecks are removed. 4. Wrecks are owned by the killer of the NPC so long as certain circumstances hold. There are, of course, other possibilities, most of which offer some serious inconsistencies.
It is also worth noting the three things you can do to a wreck which affect it in some way: 1. Salvage 2. Tractor 3. Destroy The three interactions mentioned above currently elicit different responses. Salvage gets no response, tractoring a wreck you did not create is impossible, and destroying a wreck you did not create gets you Concorded. If you created the wreck, you can tractor it or destroy it. This is inconsistent and, I think, the source of much of the angst displayed here on the forum. I believe that you should get the same response for and ability to interact with the wreck no matter what it is you are doing, and I hope the options below will reflect this.
OPTION 1 If the wreck is owned by the killer of the NPC then any attempt to stop the owner from taking away his stuff should result in some sort of legal response. All three of the aforementioned interactions with wrecks would constitute such an attempt. The owner should be able to interact with the wreck in any way he pleases.
Possible responses include CONCORD and aggression timer. Since Concord currently only responds to crimes which are threats to life (shooting someone in HiSec without a valid reason) then Concord response would be out of context. An aggression timer on the Ninja Salvager (NS), in the same way that a can-flipper gets an aggression timer, would seem to be an appropriate response. This, of course, has its own issues as can be seen by much of the whining regarding can-flipping, although I think this would be less justified as the mission runner is generally far better armed than the miner. This in turn leads to the possibility of traps by pirates, but thatĘs just the way the game mechanic works for can-flipping too, so I see no problem.
Ownership of the salvage by the player would cause an increase to the overall income of the profession. Ratting and mission running, in particular, would have to have at least a portion of salvage income included in the professionĘs income, which may require a rebalance of either bounties, mission rewards, or both.
OPTION 2 Anyone can interact with a wreck in any way. They are considered a source of materials in the same way as asteroids are and can be salvaged, tractored or destroyed by anyone. This would lead to some confusion about wrecks containing loot, but as the current system allows salvaging of said wrecks to leave a lootcan, it would be no major change to cause loot to appear in a can close to but separate from a wreck. The wreck could then be interacted with and would not cause a response so long as the can was untouched. Such a change would seem to boost salvaging as a profession, as tractoring would cause the profession to take less time per area salvaged. There would still be the same amount of wrecks available though, so what would be boosted would be the efficiency of salvaging in terms of time spent. Any increase in salvaged materials made available due to an increase in the percentage of wrecks being salvaged would cause a drop in price of said materials and their consequent rigs, effectively meaning the market would even things out.
|
Lear Hepburn
Caldari Ascendant Strategies Inc. The Transcendent
|
Posted - 2009.05.17 14:21:00 -
[2]
OPTION 3 Remove wrecks and you remove the profession, you remove the use of salvage modules, and you waste the time of people who have skilled salvaging. I canĘt see CCP doing this to be honest, as it is a relatively new mechanic which seems to be generally liked.
OPTION 4 This is probably the most woolly one to describe and will probably cause the most debate. Basically, a wreck would start off owned by the player. This will continue to be the case unless a set of circumstances are breached. Examples of these circumstances which I have seen are: 1. The wreck is owned for a set period of time, after which the wreck becomes unowned. This requires an ownership timer, and would mean that in circumstances where there are large numbers of NPCs to be killed then the owner would effectively have less time per kill to salvage it. Maybe a 30-minute timer would be appropriate and would cause mission-runners to salvage room-by-room, reducing the impact of the boost in income from the salvage by taking more of their time. 2. The wreck is owned for the period the player who made it is still on-grid, becoming unowned when he warps out. This would enable gangs to leave a guard at the wrecks should they so desire, but could be seen as a nerf to solo mission-running. Again, this would encourage salvaging room-by-room as people go. 3. The wreck is owned until the mission is handed in. This would resolve the solo mission-runnerĘs problems, but not the ratterĘs as he has no mission. Where would he stand? This and #2 above would effectively hand ownership to mission-runners/ratters until they decide they donĘt want it, causing an income boost as described in OPTION 1 above. 4. The wreck is owned until the player disowns it through a right-click context menu option. Again, this effectively boosts income from missions/ratting as described previously. Also, what happens to wrecks which are left on-grid? 5. Any combination of the above, and more. Combining 1, 2, 4 and 5 above with making wrecks scannable by combat drones would allow salvaging to continue as a profession. Mission-runners would be protected while they are still there to claim ownership and would be able to continue to do so simply by having a friend on-grid ū this is an MMO, after all. Should the mission-runner not want to salvage then the salvager can find the wreck even with no mission-runner present.
I'm sure there will be a few thoughts on this, but consistency I think is key to making people happy with the rules.
|
Santiago Fahahrri
Galactic Geographic
|
Posted - 2009.05.17 15:08:00 -
[3]
It's not broke, don't fix it. ~ Santiago Fahahrri Galactic Geographic |
Robert Caldera
|
Posted - 2009.05.17 15:09:00 -
[4]
Originally by: Santiago Fahahrri It's not broke, don't fix it.
what he said. Stop damn salvage threads already!!!
|
Kel Nissa
|
Posted - 2009.05.17 15:17:00 -
[5]
Quote: It's not broke, don't fix it.
It is
|
Benco97
Gallente
|
Posted - 2009.05.17 15:34:00 -
[6]
IT's fine as it it. You kill something and want it's salvage as well as it's loot? Fine, just take it.
But no, you want to kill something, leave it alone for an indeterminate amount of time and then salvage it at your leisure, it's not going to happen. CCP have said that they didn't intend salvage to be ANOTHER bonus for mission grinders.
If you REALLY want that salvage then TAKE IT, don't stop others from being able to do so.
Originally by: P'uck
You're a DUMBASS - bold italic underline at the VERY LEAST.
|
Robert Caldera
|
Posted - 2009.05.17 15:34:00 -
[7]
broken = defective = violates the specification
CCP stated multiple times salvage works as intended so it cannot be "broken" in the first line.
Some people merely dont like the current implementation but thats all.
|
Kahega Amielden
Minmatar Suddenly Ninjas
|
Posted - 2009.05.17 16:05:00 -
[8]
Quote:
Possible responses include CONCORD and aggression timer. Since Concord currently only responds to crimes which are threats to life (shooting someone in HiSec without a valid reason) then Concord response would be out of context. An aggression timer on the Ninja Salvager (NS), in the same way that a can-flipper gets an aggression timer, would seem to be an appropriate response. This, of course, has its own issues as can be seen by much of the whining regarding can-flipping, although I think this would be less justified as the mission runner is generally far better armed than the miner. This in turn leads to the possibility of traps by pirates, but thatĘs just the way the game mechanic works for can-flipping too, so I see no problem...
Wrecks are owned by no one. People are ****ing and moaning that their already over-profitable level 4s might sometimes take a slight income hit, even though salvaging never was intended to be extra income for the hisec missiongrind. If a missionrunner wants to be able to attack someone who is doing absolutely nothing illegal, then he can mission in lowsec/0.0 like other pirates.
Quote: Anyone can interact with a wreck in any way. They are considered a source of materials in the same way as asteroids are and can be salvaged, tractored or destroyed by anyone. This would lead to some confusion about wrecks containing loot, but as the current system allows salvaging of said wrecks to leave a lootcan, it would be no major change to cause loot to appear in a can close to but separate from a wreck. The wreck could then be interacted with and would not cause a response so long as the can was untouched....
Not bad. I don't see it being a huge issue; people underestimate how fast a maneuverable frigate can clear a wreck field, especially since CCP will allow usage of MWDs in missions. Either way, this would make salvage rules more consistent. I approve.
Quote: 5. Any combination of the above, and more. Combining 1, 2, 4 and 5 above with making wrecks scannable by combat drones would allow salvaging to continue as a profession. Mission-runners would be protected while they are still there to claim ownership and would be able to continue to do so simply by having a friend on-grid ū this is an MMO, after all. Should the mission-runner not want to salvage then the salvager can find the wreck even with no mission-runner present.
Absolutely not. At no point is the wreck EVER owned by ANYONE. It is a resource to be harvested by the first one to get to it, much like asteroids.
|
Lear Hepburn
Caldari Ascendant Strategies Inc. The Transcendent
|
Posted - 2009.05.17 16:34:00 -
[9]
This isn't a whine, it's not complaining about ninja looting, it's a call for a bit of consistency with the way things work. I know a lot of people think it's not broken, me included, but a lot of other people think it is and, as I said, I think the reason for this is the inconsistency in the way we can interact with the wreck. Make the way we interact consistent and people will have absolutely nothing to whine about.
I did not express a preference for whichever of the options I stated, but if pushed I would go for option 2.
|
Fullmetal Jackass
|
Posted - 2009.05.18 02:56:00 -
[10]
Edited by: Fullmetal Jackass on 18/05/2009 02:58:38 Constanly spamming these threads with "It ain't broke" and "CCP says" won't make them stop coming up. You'll notice it's a different player starting each. This one is at least aimed at rational discussion. People obviously think it's a problem. You guys, just as obviously think it's not. Screaming louder or more often doesn't make you right. What right do you have to try and censor the forums of theads you don't like?
All players have a legitimate right to post thier point of view. Put up a legit counter arguement or stop trolling.
|
|
Fullmetal Jackass
|
Posted - 2009.05.18 03:02:00 -
[11]
Edited by: Fullmetal Jackass on 18/05/2009 03:04:21
Originally by: Benco97 But no, you want to kill something, leave it alone for an indeterminate amount of time and then salvage it at your leisure, it's not going to happen. CCP have said that they didn't intend salvage to be ANOTHER bonus for mission grinders.
Every post I've seen recently by CCP staff says wrecks are considered unowned. Duh. I've yet to see a post stating wrecks weren't added as extra income. In fact, I know of two during delevopement that say exactly the opposite:
Reported by CCP Oveur | 2007.03.19 18:46:07 "You're taking away our ISK! We don't make that much ISK!
Understandably percieved so based on the listing in the last blog so let's clarify that also. Direct ISK into your wallet as bounty from NPCs are not the way we reward you for the high level agent missions.
You can still make (tons) of ISK, but it's in the form of materials, tools, ship loot drop, salvaging, technology (hacking). You now have the choice to either capitalize on these items and make them worth more to other players by using the mini-professions or simply sell directly the stuff to other players.
The only difference is that we're not creating ISK out of thin air from CONCORD (Infusion) but rather giving you perishable items (Sink) which other players pay you for."
Also
Reported by CCP Oveur | 2006.09.26 12:58:59 "We also wanted to improve loot in general, so we finally went ahead and exchanged that pristine can that drops for a proper wrecked ship. That shipwreck is now salvage-able, where you will find scraps of components required to create Rigs, the new ship upgrades which currently have a heavy defensive focus."
|
Lear Hepburn
Caldari Ascendant Strategies Inc. The Transcendent
|
Posted - 2009.05.18 05:42:00 -
[12]
Originally by: Fullmetal Jackass Edited by: Fullmetal Jackass on 18/05/2009 03:04:21
Originally by: Benco97 But no, you want to kill something, leave it alone for an indeterminate amount of time and then salvage it at your leisure, it's not going to happen. CCP have said that they didn't intend salvage to be ANOTHER bonus for mission grinders.
Every post I've seen recently by CCP staff says wrecks are considered unowned. Duh. I've yet to see a post stating wrecks weren't added as extra income. In fact, I know of two during delevopement that say exactly the opposite:
Reported by CCP Oveur | 2007.03.19 18:46:07 "You're taking away our ISK! We don't make that much ISK!
Understandably percieved so based on the listing in the last blog so let's clarify that also. Direct ISK into your wallet as bounty from NPCs are not the way we reward you for the high level agent missions.
You can still make (tons) of ISK, but it's in the form of materials, tools, ship loot drop, salvaging, technology (hacking). You now have the choice to either capitalize on these items and make them worth more to other players by using the mini-professions or simply sell directly the stuff to other players.
The only difference is that we're not creating ISK out of thin air from CONCORD (Infusion) but rather giving you perishable items (Sink) which other players pay you for."
Also
Reported by CCP Oveur | 2006.09.26 12:58:59 "We also wanted to improve loot in general, so we finally went ahead and exchanged that pristine can that drops for a proper wrecked ship. That shipwreck is now salvage-able, where you will find scraps of components required to create Rigs, the new ship upgrades which currently have a heavy defensive focus."
Fullmetal, I'm not going to argue with you about whether or not salvage was intended as income for mission runners or not, but will instead suggest that it's a form of income you can take if you invest the time to do so, which seems to be the gist of the CCP quotes above.
For example, asteroids are clearly meant as income for miners, but a player with mining skills who turns up in a ship which is unable to take advantage of the asteroid will not make the income, nor can he claim the asteroids for himself and then go and get a ship to mine them - it's first come first served. The same is true of salvaging wrecks - you need the skills and the modules to take advantage of the available income. Now I realise that the miner did not "make" the asteroid in the same way tat the mission runner makes the wreck, but that actually gives the mission-runner an advantage over the miner: whereas all miners simply know there will be new rocks at the belt after downtime, meaning none has the advantage of intelligence, the mission runner knows when and where the wrecks will be because he put them there. Furthermore, since there is no limit to the number of missions one can do in a day, there is an endless supply of potential wrecks; there are only a certain number of roids in a field and a limited number of fields. The advantage clearly lies with the mission runner/salavager here as he has an unlimited number of wrecks to salvage and the intelligence of where to find them, and I consider these advantages the inherent reward they get for taking the time to make the wrecks. Adding actual legally-backed ownership would add a further unneccesary advantage and would make the income riskless. Leaving them unowned and making the mission runner have to take the time to salvage them adds the risk of ninja-salvaging to an otherwise large and riskless income stream (salvaging itself is riskless, not mission-running).
|
Sep'Shoni
Gallente Carpe Diem inc.
|
Posted - 2009.05.18 16:40:00 -
[13]
Originally by: Lear Hepburn [... OPTION 4 This is probably the most woolly one to describe and will probably cause the most debate. Basically, a wreck would start off owned by the player. This will continue to be the case unless a set of circumstances are breached. Examples of these circumstances which I have seen are: 1. The wreck is owned for a set period of time, after which the wreck becomes unowned. This requires an ownership timer, and would mean that in circumstances where there are large numbers of NPCs to be killed then the owner would effectively have less time per kill to salvage it. Maybe a 30-minute timer would be appropriate and would cause mission-runners to salvage room-by-room, reducing the impact of the boost in income from the salvage by taking more of their time. ...
I like this one.
It would help balance the missioning vs. mining income thing by slowing the missioners down and it would be a boon for new players in their high-sec ratting phase by giving them better picking out of the wreck clouds that accumulate around mining barges.
And its logically consistent with the current aggression timer on theft -- half an hour would be plenty of time for someone to decide they want or do not want the contents of the wrecks.
Sep'Shoni
Mining ore and making stuff. Its not just a job, its an obsession. |
Abrazzar
|
Posted - 2009.05.18 16:42:00 -
[14]
Originally by: Santiago Fahahrri It's not broke, don't fix it.
If it works, improve it. -------- Ideas for: Mining
|
Dasubervixen
|
Posted - 2009.05.18 16:51:00 -
[15]
Originally by: Abrazzar
Originally by: Santiago Fahahrri It's not broke, don't fix it.
If it works, improve it.
Salvaging doesn't need fixing or improving. It's fine just as it is.
|
Kel Nissa
|
Posted - 2009.05.18 17:16:00 -
[16]
Quote: Salvaging doesn't need fixing or improving. It's fine just as it is.
A feature without the need of improvment is already dead.
|
Straight Chillen
Gallente Solar Wind AAA Citizens
|
Posted - 2009.05.18 17:29:00 -
[17]
Salvaging is like the one aspect of this game that is fine how it stands. CCP has repeatedly said that all wrecks are considered space junk and that salvaging is essentially recycling the trash.
Either learn to salvage as you mission/rat/plex or whatever or pay a noob in your corp to do it. Please resize image to a maximum of 400 x 120, not exceeding 24000 bytes. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint |
silken mouth
|
Posted - 2009.05.18 17:52:00 -
[18]
1. ownership to wrecks + ninja salvaging -> consensual PVP 2. EVE = PVP focused game
1. + 2. = better EvE
quite simple
|
Lear Hepburn
Caldari Ascendant Strategies Inc. The Transcendent
|
Posted - 2009.05.18 17:56:00 -
[19]
Originally by: Straight Chillen Salvaging is like the one aspect of this game that is fine how it stands. CCP has repeatedly said that all wrecks are considered space junk and that salvaging is essentially recycling the trash.
Either learn to salvage as you mission/rat/plex or whatever or pay a noob in your corp to do it.
So what about the inconsistency of not being able to tractor/shoot these wrecks? That, after all, is what this is about.
|
silken mouth
|
Posted - 2009.05.18 17:59:00 -
[20]
Originally by: Straight Chillen Salvaging is like the one aspect of this game that is fine how it stands. CCP has repeatedly said that all wrecks are considered space junk and that salvaging is essentially recycling the trash.
Either learn to salvage as you mission/rat/plex or whatever or pay a noob in your corp to do it.
CCP have also repeatedly said that its the playerbase who develope the game...
the only people to have a reason to complain about such a change are people who want to steal without consequences.
|
|
Tamahra
Danke fuer den Fisch
|
Posted - 2009.05.18 18:02:00 -
[21]
salvaging is fine as it is. This is not eve offline, its eve online. Lrn2deal with other players interaction.
|
Kel Nissa
|
Posted - 2009.05.18 18:31:00 -
[22]
Quote: Lrn2deal with other players interaction.
Exactly that is what many of us want. Allow mission runners to interact with ninja salvagers - remove their npc (aka concord) protection while being inside their mission instance.
|
Lear Hepburn
Caldari Ascendant Strategies Inc. The Transcendent
|
Posted - 2009.05.18 18:53:00 -
[23]
Originally by: Kel Nissa
Quote: Lrn2deal with other players interaction.
Exactly that is what many of us want. Allow mission runners to interact with ninja salvagers - remove their npc (aka concord) protection while being inside their mission instance.
Of course, if the ninja salvager isn't really a ninja salvager and is, instead, a pirate out for an easy kill of an expensive faction setup PvE setup ship, they'd be able to find you in your mission instance too. Is that what you want?
|
Washell Olivaw
|
Posted - 2009.05.18 23:25:00 -
[24]
Miners complained about being unable to deal with people stealing from their cans. Now they're can-flipped, baited, abused in other ways and still unable to deal with people stealing from their cans.
If wrecks get ownership, things will not improve for missionrunners. Things will not improve for salvagers. Things will improve for pirates.
So the core question of this debate should be: Does (hi-sec) pirating need a boost?
Originally by: Signature Everybody has a photographic memory, some people just don't have film.
|
Fullmetal Jackass
|
Posted - 2009.05.19 02:09:00 -
[25]
Edited by: Fullmetal Jackass on 19/05/2009 02:09:26
Originally by: Lear Hepburn Fullmetal, I'm not going to argue with you about whether or not salvage was intended as income for mission runners or not, but will instead suggest that it's a form of income you can take if you invest the time to do so, which seems to be the gist of the CCP quotes above.
I didn't really wanna argue about it, I'm pretty sure you all know my views by now. I just wanted to point out the usual "salvaging is fine" BS as just that.
|
Fullmetal Jackass
|
Posted - 2009.05.19 02:14:00 -
[26]
Originally by: Washell Olivaw Miners complained about being unable to deal with people stealing from their cans. Now they're can-flipped, baited, abused in other ways and still unable to deal with people stealing from their cans.
If wrecks get ownership, things will not improve for missionrunners. Things will not improve for salvagers. Things will improve for pirates.
So the core question of this debate should be: Does (hi-sec) pirating need a boost?
You mean dumb miners complain. Smart miners have an alt or a couple buddies nearby to kill pirates.
Right now you don't even get that option with wrecks. Options and more pvp are a good thing.
|
Lear Hepburn
Caldari Ascendant Strategies Inc. The Transcendent
|
Posted - 2009.05.19 06:23:00 -
[27]
Originally by: Fullmetal Jackass
Originally by: Washell Olivaw Miners complained about being unable to deal with people stealing from their cans. Now they're can-flipped, baited, abused in other ways and still unable to deal with people stealing from their cans.
If wrecks get ownership, things will not improve for missionrunners. Things will not improve for salvagers. Things will improve for pirates.
So the core question of this debate should be: Does (hi-sec) pirating need a boost?
You mean dumb miners complain. Smart miners have an alt or a couple buddies nearby to kill pirates.
Right now you don't even get that option with wrecks. Options and more pvp are a good thing.
You'd be happy to have pirates able to turn up in your mission with the ability to kill off your expensive faction-fit PvE ship, would you? Or would you not risk it and just let the ninja salvager take the wrecks?
|
Fullmetal Jackass
|
Posted - 2009.05.19 06:34:00 -
[28]
Edited by: Fullmetal Jackass on 19/05/2009 06:39:37
Originally by: Lear Hepburn You'd be happy to have pirates able to turn up in your mission with the ability to kill off your expensive faction-fit PvE ship, would you? Or would you not risk it and just let the ninja salvager take the wrecks?
I don't faction fit my mission ship. T2 maybe some meta 4. I don't even rig my mission ship usually. I also mission in a command ship with a pvp fit from time to time. So yeah, I'd risk it.
Seriously, Pirates can already flag in my mission if they want to. I run missions in low sec/null sec if I can find a semi quite system. So why wouldn't I wanna be able to shoot at someone that's ****in me off? This game is supposed to be about pvp and "retribution as law".
|
Lear Hepburn
Caldari Ascendant Strategies Inc. The Transcendent
|
Posted - 2009.05.19 15:34:00 -
[29]
Originally by: Fullmetal Jackass Edited by: Fullmetal Jackass on 19/05/2009 06:39:37
Originally by: Lear Hepburn You'd be happy to have pirates able to turn up in your mission with the ability to kill off your expensive faction-fit PvE ship, would you? Or would you not risk it and just let the ninja salvager take the wrecks?
I don't faction fit my mission ship. T2 maybe some meta 4. I don't even rig my mission ship usually. I also mission in a command ship with a pvp fit from time to time. So yeah, I'd risk it.
Seriously, Pirates can already flag in my mission if they want to. I run missions in low sec/null sec if I can find a semi quite system. So why wouldn't I wanna be able to shoot at someone that's ****in me off? This game is supposed to be about pvp and "retribution as law".
Fair enough. So you'd go for option 1 I'm guessing. I'm sure that'd be fine until someone who deos faction fit their ship comes a-whining.
|
Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
|
Posted - 2009.05.19 15:52:00 -
[30]
Originally by: Abrazzar
Originally by: Santiago Fahahrri It's not broke, don't fix it.
If it works, improve it.
I suggest that we improve salvaging by making it a CONCORDable offence. You are desecrating a war grave, after all. This will immensely improve the value of salvaged components.
I also suggest that we stop salvaging this thread, over and over again.
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |