| Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Kzintee
Caldari
   |
Posted - 2009.10.13 01:21:00 -
[1]
This is primarily a proposal related to ninja salvaging/can stealing/mission busting in particular, but should also have some interesting uses in fleet PvP.
#1. Wreck/can/ship traps. This is very much like the ship trap seen in Bushwhacked episode of the Firefly. A trap, launched through a hi-slot module, can be attached to any wreck/can/ship left in space. Trap will be triggered by an action upon the said module (looting a can/wreck, salvaging wreck, boarding ship). Trap will explode doing AoE damage very much like a smart bomb or stealth bomber bomb. Range should be over the standard 2500m. Amount of damage done is to be balanced. Not sure how much.
Where to be used:
Mission runners can use these to protect wrecks. Miners can use these to protect their jetcans. Bait ship traps can explode, killing/crippling ships that wandered up.
#2. Mines
A mine is a proximity bomb launched from a hislot module. Stationary. Requires friend-or-foe authentication (friend is launcher of the mine or person in fleet, everyone else is a foe), will blow up on proximity to a foe. Range TBD, should be more than 2500m. Damage TBD. Multiple mines in proximity to each other should not trigger an explosion. Bomb should trigger on cloaked ships.
Uses:
Just like a jetcan at the mission entry point to uncloak uninvited guests, but with a little oomph to it.
Mine fields. Lure your opposing fleet there and watch the fireworks.
|
BeanBagKing
Ch3mic4l Warfare
Gypsy Nation
|
Posted - 2009.10.13 01:28:00 -
[2]
These have been suggested before.
Mines were in the game at some point, however, were taken out due to causing lag. Traps have never been in, but as I've said, has been suggested before so I'm not going to bother elaborating on them for a second (possibly third or fourth time). To sum up my stance I'm not completely against either so long as balancing is acceptable and they do not cause lag even when used in large numbers (because people will). However, I don't believe those two conditions are obtainable.
|
Kahega Amielden
Minmatar
Suddenly Ninjas
|
Posted - 2009.10.13 01:59:00 -
[3]
 Quote:
Where to be used:
Mission runners can use these to protect wrecks. Miners can use these to protect their jetcans. Bait ship traps can explode, killing/crippling ships that wandered up.
Wrecks do not belong to you. This only works if the ninja can also plant these in wrecks.
|
Kzintee
Caldari
|
Posted - 2009.10.13 03:53:00 -
[4]
Originally by: Kahega Amielden
Wrecks do not belong to you. This only works if the ninja can also plant these in wrecks.
Not to start an argument with a man who wrote a guide on ninja salvage, but considering the following are true:
1. Wrecks have a tag with corp name
2. Wrecks give kill rights when looted
implies that wrecks DO belong to me. But it also implies that the ownership is not absolute. I would be fine with ability to place traps on other peoples' property. It would add a nice balancing touch to hte game.
|
Lear Hepburn
Caldari
Ascendant Strategies Inc.
The Transcendent
|
Posted - 2009.10.13 05:27:00 -
[5]
You really don't want to go placing traps on wrecks. The moment you do damage to someone you'll either have Concord on top of you or you'll have the rest of his corp on top of you with Kill Rights.
|
Mire Stoude
The Undesirables
|
Posted - 2009.10.13 06:31:00 -
[6]
Edited by: Mire Stoude on 13/10/2009 06:35:38
No. Listen, not only would the "griefers" turn this against the highsec mission runners, newbies, casual players, opportunistic industrialists, and other "carebears" you're hoping to protect (where there is a will, theres a way), but it would also just be a pain in the butt in the grand scheme of things.
Also, even if you blew up someone salvaging you're wrecks with a trap or bomb or whatever, concord would come crashing around you because salvaging is not a crime but blowing someone up without them being aggressed to you is.
|
Lear Hepburn
Caldari
Ascendant Strategies Inc.
The Transcendent
|
Posted - 2009.10.13 07:29:00 -
[7]
Edited by: Lear Hepburn on 13/10/2009 07:30:47
Originally by: Kzintee
Originally by: Kahega Amielden
Wrecks do not belong to you. This only works if the ninja can also plant these in wrecks.
Not to start an argument with a man who wrote a guide on ninja salvage, but considering the following are true:
1. Wrecks have a tag with corp name
2. Wrecks give kill rights when looted
implies that wrecks DO belong to me. But it also implies that the ownership is not absolute. I would be fine with ability to place traps on other peoples' property. It would add a nice balancing touch to hte game.
1. Just means that you can tractor it around - as you say, non-absolute ownership.
2. Is wrong. Wrecks can't be looted, but any lootcans trapped inside the wreck can be, and it is these which give the killrights; you can see that this is the case because if you try salvaging a lootable wreck first you get a lootcan. Wrecks can only be salvaged. This is a flaw in the display, I think - no wreck should ever contain a lootcan, and if a dead rat drops loot is should spawn both a wreck and a seperate can: this would make this point clear.
|
BeanBagKing
Ch3mic4l Warfare
Gypsy Nation
|
Posted - 2009.10.13 08:32:00 -
[8]
Originally by: Lear Hepburn
Edited by: Lear Hepburn on 13/10/2009 07:30:47
Originally by: Kzintee
Originally by: Kahega Amielden
Wrecks do not belong to you. This only works if the ninja can also plant these in wrecks.
Not to start an argument with a man who wrote a guide on ninja salvage, but considering the following are true:
1. Wrecks have a tag with corp name
2. Wrecks give kill rights when looted
implies that wrecks DO belong to me. But it also implies that the ownership is not absolute. I would be fine with ability to place traps on other peoples' property. It would add a nice balancing touch to hte game.
1. Just means that you can tractor it around - as you say, non-absolute ownership.
2. Is wrong. Wrecks can't be looted, but any lootcans trapped inside the wreck can be, and it is these which give the killrights; you can see that this is the case because if you try salvaging a lootable wreck first you get a lootcan. Wrecks can only be salvaged. This is a flaw in the display, I think - no wreck should ever contain a lootcan, and if a dead rat drops loot is should spawn both a wreck and a seperate can: this would make this point clear.
Wreaks and cans used to appear as separate objects every time something with loot was destroyed. This created a lot of objects in space (one could say almost twice as many as now). To combat the lag this was creating in some mission systems CCP combined the loot and the wreak. So now you get loot "inside" a wreak. This is also where your name on the wreak comes from. Not because you own it but because the loot, or even potential loot that could be inside it, belongs to you. It causes a bit of confusion but you having your name on the wreak DOES NOT! mean it belongs to you. Also, as has been pointed out, wreaks cannot be looted.
|
Tiger's Spirit
Caldari
|
Posted - 2009.10.13 08:50:00 -
[9]
Originally by: Kahega Amielden
also Kzintee
Per CCP Prism X : Originally by: CCP Prism X
Why is stealing salvage OK? It's not. It shouldn't even be possible to move an item from your cargo-hold / hanger to another persons cargo-hold / hanger without opening a trade window. Before the salvage enters those containers it is not considered your stuff by the server code. Hence it's not stealing.
implies wreaks DO NOT belong to you.
Belongs to who ? Just the killer can tractor beam the wreck. Just the killer can destroy the wreck without concorded etc.
So, belongs to killer and their fleet.
Dont talk about server code or development realisation, that's a diferent thing.
Like the the endless space in the game, which consists of cubes with a greatness of 400 kilometres.
Development things not equal with game things.
|
AsheraII
|
Posted - 2009.10.13 11:45:00 -
[10]
Originally by: Tiger's Spirit
Belongs to who ? Just the killer can tractor beam the wreck. Just the killer can destroy the wreck without concorded etc.
So, belongs to killer and their fleet.
If I were to allow you to drive my car, would that make you the owner of my car?
If I were to allow you to drive my car, would that give you automatical rights to paint it yellow?
Being given specific rights on something does not make you the owner.
Being given specific rights on something does not automatically grant any other rights to it.
And yes, a car rental company COULD theoretically rent a car to you without giving you permission to drive it. |
|
|
BeanBagKing
Ch3mic4l Warfare
Gypsy Nation
|
Posted - 2009.10.13 15:44:00 -
[11]
Originally by: Tiger's Spirit
Belongs to who ? Just the killer can tractor beam the wreck. Just the killer can destroy the wreck without concorded etc.
So, belongs to killer and their fleet.
Dont talk about server code or development realisation, that's a diferent thing.
Like the the endless space in the game, which consists of cubes with a greatness of 400 kilometres.
Development things not equal with game things.
There is also a world of difference when talking about server code, development, etc to talk about something that was done to make the game possible (i.e. 400KM cubes because you couldn't load everything at once) and something that was done on purpose and with intention. Not because they were forced to by server limitations, but because they wanted to shape the game and the rules in a certain way...
Per CCP Mitnal: Originally by: CCP Mitnal
"Our policy on this is extremely clear... Salvaging is a mini-profession within EVE and does not constitute stealing."
Per GM Faolchu : Originally by: GM Faolchu
Salvaging other peoples wrecks.... This is an intended game mechanic and is in no way an exploit. People salvaging your missions npcs or the player you just blew up are doing nothing wrong. The players are salvaging what is effectively floating rubbish in space and Concord places no value on this wreckage.
Eve is a harsh place you won't always have everything go your way, its a do or die world and people do what they can to get along. If salvaging some wreckage gets them a few more ISK someone will do it, it doesn't matter who just blew it up.
So yes, I will talk about "server code or development realization". AsheraII and others have already discussed the matter of your arguments being paper thin.
|
Kahega Amielden
Minmatar
Suddenly Ninjas
|
Posted - 2009.10.13 16:13:00 -
[12]
Quote:
Not to start an argument with a man who wrote a guide on ninja salvage, but considering the following are true:
1. Wrecks have a tag with corp name
2. Wrecks give kill rights when looted
Wrecks are containers for loot, hence the corp tag and the kill rights when looted.
Regardless, you're trying to nerf something that does not need to be nerfed.
|
Your Host
|
Posted - 2009.10.13 16:49:00 -
[13]
I'm pretty sure that I heard in the fanfest videos that you will be able to mark wrecks as:
salvageable /unsalvageable
My guess if its unsalvageable you get concorded??? Or maybe you just still turn red as you do now? Either way, i think it was post dominion
|
Kzintee
Caldari
|
Posted - 2009.10.13 17:29:00 -
[14]
So Concord should not respond to trap/mine damage. That would be the whole point of traps and mines...
|
FISHANDCHIPS
|
Posted - 2009.10.13 17:34:00 -
[15]
Originally by: Your Host
I'm pretty sure that I heard in the fanfest videos that you will be able to mark wrecks as:
salvageable /unsalvageable
My guess if its unsalvageable you get concorded??? Or maybe you just still turn red as you do now? Either way, i think it was post dominion
no
its you can mark the loot inside as takable or untakable nothing happens to the salvage which has always been a free for all
|
Your Host
|
Posted - 2009.10.13 17:35:00 -
[16]
also, i think mines have been introduced and removed from the game already.
|
Paul Clavet
Honorless Internet Jerks
|
Posted - 2009.10.13 17:45:00 -
[17]
Originally by: FISHANDCHIPS
Originally by: Your Host
I'm pretty sure that I heard in the fanfest videos that you will be able to mark wrecks as:
salvageable /unsalvageable
My guess if its unsalvageable you get concorded??? Or maybe you just still turn red as you do now? Either way, i think it was post dominion
no
its you can mark the loot inside as takable or untakable nothing happens to the salvage which has always been a free for all
You're both wrong.
The expansion will allow you to set your cans Free-For-All, meaning that your buddy who isn't part of your corp can take from them if you want without aggro problems. There is no further limitation being placed on loot theft, and anyone can still come take anything they want with the worst case being aggro.
To the OP:
Yes, mines and trapped wrecks are fine. Of course, when your mines blow me up you'll have to be CONCORDed if I haven't looted yet, and I'll get aggro if a mine blows me up after I've stolen or your trapped loot can hits me. Are you willing to dock up for 30 minutes (aggro renewal) every time you pop one of my sub-million ISK vigils?
So yes, I endorse the OP's suggestion. Signed.
----
Blog: My Loot, Your Tears |
Kzintee
Caldari
|
Posted - 2009.10.13 18:01:00 -
[18]
The point of traps and mines is not to prompt Concord response. So certain restrictions should be placed on them (such as no traps/mines in vicinity of stations like SBs).
|
Dirty Wizard
|
Posted - 2009.10.13 18:13:00 -
[19]
Originally by: Kzintee
The point of traps and mines is not to prompt Concord response. So certain restrictions should be placed on them (such as no traps/mines in vicinity of stations like SBs).
Doesn't really matter where you are in the system. An aggressive attack against another player will prompt Concord response. Whether that be through shooting someone, or hitting someone with a trap/mine bomb. I don't have to be a psychic to see this will backfire horribly on mission runners and do little or nothing to thwart ninja salvagers and loot theives.
|
Kzintee
Caldari
|
Posted - 2009.10.13 19:11:00 -
[20]
Originally by: Dirty Wizard
Doesn't really matter where you are in the system. An aggressive attack against another player will prompt Concord response. Whether that be through shooting someone, or hitting someone with a trap/mine bomb. I don't have to be a psychic to see this will backfire horribly on mission runners and do little or nothing to thwart ninja salvagers and loot theives.
Yes, the present mechanic is for Concord to respond. CHANGE IT. Is that hard to comprehend?
Ok, griefers will still be able to grief people. Remember, mission can be scanned out ONLY if player is in it already. So you drop the mine yourself when you get into mission, or take the chance that if you're scanned out you could find yourself in a mine field.
|
|
|
BeanBagKing
Ch3mic4l Warfare
Gypsy Nation
|
Posted - 2009.10.13 20:06:00 -
[21]
Originally by: Kzintee
Yes, the present mechanic is for Concord to respond. CHANGE IT. Is that hard to comprehend?
No. Concord is a stable element in the game, it's not one sided and doesn't chose or protect miners over carebears over mission runners over pirates. Your suggesting changing this so Concord suddenly doesn't care about one specific weapon being used. If you trap-bomb someone -before- they have taken loot (otherwise they would have aggro and it would be find anyway) suddenly Concord doesn't care? It's alright to deal damage to someone as long as it looks like they might have the intention of stealing something?
No, it doesn't work that way, period. I can't believe your even suggesting changing the way CONCORD has and always worked just because you want to be able to trap your wreaks with no consequences. Well I want to change CONCORD so I can shoot you in the mission area without them responding, how fair does that sound to you. This is one of the most utterly ridiculous things I've ever come across in the suggestion forum, and I've seen some good ones.
|
Kzintee
Caldari
|
Posted - 2009.10.13 22:21:00 -
[22]
Originally by: BeanBagKing
No. Concord is a stable element in the game, it's not one sided and doesn't chose or protect miners over carebears over mission runners over pirates. Your suggesting changing this so Concord suddenly doesn't care about one specific weapon being used. If you trap-bomb someone -before- they have taken loot (otherwise they would have aggro and it would be find anyway) suddenly Concord doesn't care? It's alright to deal damage to someone as long as it looks like they might have the intention of stealing something?
What I'm proposing is still not going to be one-sided.
Look at it this way. Player A attacks player B. Player B calls Concord with "Help! Player A is attacking me!". Concord shows up and blows up player A.
In this scenario, player A leaves a mine. Player B wanders up close to it and blows up. All player B can do is "Help! Someone has attacked me!" Concord shows up and goes "Well...who did this?"
Notice that I did not mention who player A is and who player B is. A could be mission runner and B could be ninja, or vice versa.
Yes, I'm suggesting a change. You're replying with "it's a stable element of the game, no need to change it".
As for blowing someone up for looking at you wrong...well, that's in the spirit of the game today, just not in hisec. Anyway, what are you doing in my pocket of space where my agent has sent me to fulfil a mission? For all I care, you could be a member of the opposing party coming in to shoot me.
|
WuChiJIanRen
|
Posted - 2009.10.13 23:57:00 -
[23]
Originally by: Kzintee
Originally by: BeanBagKing
No. Concord is a stable element in the game, it's not one sided and doesn't chose or protect miners over carebears over mission runners over pirates. Your suggesting changing this so Concord suddenly doesn't care about one specific weapon being used. If you trap-bomb someone -before- they have taken loot (otherwise they would have aggro and it would be find anyway) suddenly Concord doesn't care? It's alright to deal damage to someone as long as it looks like they might have the intention of stealing something?
What I'm proposing is still not going to be one-sided.
Look at it this way. Player A attacks player B. Player B calls Concord with "Help! Player A is attacking me!". Concord shows up and blows up player A.
In this scenario, player A leaves a mine. Player B wanders up close to it and blows up. All player B can do is "Help! Someone has attacked me!" Concord shows up and goes "Well...who did this?"
Notice that I did not mention who player A is and who player B is. A could be mission runner and B could be ninja, or vice versa.
Yes, I'm suggesting a change. You're replying with "it's a stable element of the game, no need to change it".
As for blowing someone up for looking at you wrong...well, that's in the spirit of the game today, just not in hisec. Anyway, what are you doing in my pocket of space where my agent has sent me to fulfil a mission? For all I care, you could be a member of the opposing party coming in to shoot me.
Player A attacks player B. Player B calls Concord with "Help! Player A is attacking me!". Concord shows up and blows up player A.
In this scenario, player A leaves a mine. Player B wanders up close to it and blows up. All player B can do is "Help! Someone has attacked me!" Concord shows up and goes "Well...who did this?"
-----------
Player A throws a bomb to player B then warps. Player B calls Concord with "Help! Player A is attacking me!". Concord shows up and goes "Well...who did this?"
Don't know who placed the mine?You just said "1. Wrecks have a tag with corp name"
|
Kzintee
Caldari
|
Posted - 2009.10.14 00:17:00 -
[24]
Originally by: WuChiJIanRen
Player A throws a bomb to player B then warps. Player B calls Concord with "Help! Player A is attacking me!". Concord shows up and goes "Well...who did this?"
Don't know who placed the mine?You just said "1. Wrecks have a tag with corp name"
Wrecks have a corp tag, dust left by the mine does not.
|
Kahega Amielden
Minmatar
Suddenly Ninjas
|
Posted - 2009.10.14 00:44:00 -
[25]
You've still yet to give a reason why the nerf to ninjasalvaging. When proposing something it's customary to explain what the problem is
|
AtheistOfDoom
Amarr
The Athiest Syndicate
|
Posted - 2009.10.14 01:27:00 -
[26]
Originally by: Kzintee
Originally by: WuChiJIanRen
Player A throws a bomb to player B then warps. Player B calls Concord with "Help! Player A is attacking me!". Concord shows up and goes "Well...who did this?"
Don't know who placed the mine?You just said "1. Wrecks have a tag with corp name"
Wrecks have a corp tag, dust left by the mine does not.
Cans and missiles and drones should work this way too right? They are all technically remote devices. If you were to drop a mine and someone was to right-click it it would have your face on it.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ |
Kzintee
Caldari
|
Posted - 2009.10.14 01:38:00 -
[27]
Originally by: Kahega Amielden
You've still yet to give a reason why the nerf to ninjasalvaging. When proposing something it's customary to explain what the problem is
It's not a nerf to ninjasalvaging. In fact, if player does absolutely nothing with the mines/traps then salvaging is not affected at all.
I'd consider it a way to help player guard their mission bubble because at this time it's impossible for me to prevent you from entering it and salvaging everything if you scanned me down.
|
Kahega Amielden
Minmatar
Suddenly Ninjas
|
Posted - 2009.10.14 02:14:00 -
[28]
Quote:
It's not a nerf to ninjasalvaging. In fact, if player does absolutely nothing with the mines/traps then salvaging is not affected at all.
I'd consider it a way to help player guard their mission bubble because at this time it's impossible for me to prevent you from entering it and salvaging everything if you scanned me down.
Given that there's not supposed to be anything stopping me from salvaging the wrecks, that's pretty much intended. It doesn't belong to you.
And yes, it is a nerf to ninjasalvaging. Introducing new modules to combat something is a nerf to it. If a new type of turret was released which did a million damage per hit to shields but nothing to armor, then it's a nerf to shield tanking because in common PVP situations shield tanks would perform noticeably worse than before. Same thing here.
|
Kzintee
Caldari
|
Posted - 2009.10.14 03:31:00 -
[29]
Originally by: Kahega Amielden
Given that there's not supposed to be anything stopping me from salvaging the wrecks, that's pretty much intended. It doesn't belong to you.
And yes, it is a nerf to ninjasalvaging. Introducing new modules to combat something is a nerf to it. If a new type of turret was released which did a million damage per hit to shields but nothing to armor, then it's a nerf to shield tanking because in common PVP situations shield tanks would perform noticeably worse than before. Same thing here.
And it's fine that we disagree. This is a forum for proposals and ideas. Your agreement/disagreement with it will simply help refine the idea.
CCP is looking for ideas on ninja salvaging and that's mine.
Do you also claim that marauders are a nerf to ninja salvaging?
|
Kahega Amielden
Minmatar
Suddenly Ninjas
|
Posted - 2009.10.14 03:54:00 -
[30]
Quote:
CCP is looking for ideas on ninja salvaging and that's mine.
Yes. That's what this forum is for. However, if you fail to tell CCP why it should be changed, then they will ignore you.
Quote:
Do you also claim that marauders are a nerf to ninja salvaging?
Yes. Marauders have been in since Trinity, though.Their salvaging capabilities are partly balanced by their huge cost and the fact that they're very easy to scan out. Also, marauders can still be ninja'd from rather easily; they just don't leave huge wreckfields in their wake which can be taken whenever the ninja warps in.
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |