EVE Search - Ninja Salvaging - A simple Idea (lots of those right?)

All Channels

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Ninja Salvaging - A simple Idea (lots of those right?)

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 1 post(s)
Lear Hepburn Caldari Ascendant Strategies Inc. The Transcendent	Posted - 2009.10.19 05:17:00 - [1] If it's in a can and you take it you get flagged. If it's not in a can and you take it you don't. Simples!
Lear Hepburn Caldari Ascendant Strategies Inc. The Transcendent	Posted - 2009.10.19 05:57:00 - [2] Originally by: Fullmetal Jackass Nothing would change if wrecks flagged when salvaged. If that's the case then why bother with all the trouble of changing the code?
Lear Hepburn Caldari Ascendant Strategies Inc. The Transcendent	Posted - 2009.10.19 06:56:00 - [3] Originally by: Fullmetal Jackass Originally by: Lear Hepburn If it's in a can and you take it you get flagged. If it's not in a can and you take it you don't. Simples! Daddy still says huh? Do ya ever think for yourself? Constantly Wrecks are useless until salvaged (with a module, a skill and player interaction), therefore they should be unowned. I agree that a short (15-20 minute) timer would allow people the option to take the time to come back and salvage it if they do want it, but perpetual (or even long) ownership would only ever benefit the MR. Originally by: Lear Hepburn Originally by: Fullmetal Jackass Nothing would change if wrecks flagged when salvaged. If that's the case then why bother with all the trouble of changing the code? Why did they bother with the stealth change in the first place then? If they hadn't, it would have saved months of crying on the forums. You're the one who said nothing would change! Changing the mechanic to what it is now adds a small PvP element (race to get the salvage) to what is otherwise a safe PvE part of the game.
Lear Hepburn Caldari Ascendant Strategies Inc. The Transcendent	Posted - 2009.10.19 16:24:00 - [4] Originally by: Fullmetal Jackass Originally by: Lear Hepburn Constantly Wrecks are useless until salvaged (with a module, a skill and player interaction), therefore they should be unowned. I agree that a short (15-20 minute) timer would allow people the option to take the time to come back and salvage it if they do want it, but perpetual (or even long) ownership would only ever benefit the MR. I agree there should be a timer. I also think people should be able to probe for wrecks that have gone FFA. Originally by: Lear Hepburn You're the one who said nothing would change! Changing the mechanic to what it is now adds a small PvP element (race to get the salvage) to what is otherwise a safe PvE part of the game. Did I say nothing would change? I meant little would change. The thief would still have the advantage. They'd just have to be a little more cautious as there would be some real risk to a cheap ship. There would also be more chance of escalation to real pvp. Both would be good for a PvP game. We appear to be violently agreeing!
Lear Hepburn Caldari Ascendant Strategies Inc. The Transcendent	Posted - 2009.10.21 17:20:00 - [5] Originally by: Lemmy Kravitz People who PvE risk through Pve People who NS risk nothing Given that the value of "risk through PvE" is about the same as the value of "risk nothing" then I agree entirely. Oh, and salvagers risk their time. They may well end up with nothing.
Lear Hepburn Caldari Ascendant Strategies Inc. The Transcendent	Posted - 2009.10.21 20:22:00 - [6] Originally by: Lemmy Kravitz Edited by: Lemmy Kravitz on 21/10/2009 17:30:59 Originally by: Lear Hepburn Originally by: Lemmy Kravitz People who PvE risk through Pve People who NS risk nothing Given that the value of "risk through PvE" is about the same as the value of "risk nothing" then I agree entirely. Oh, and salvagers risk their time. They may well end up with nothing. ehehe, arguement is weak sauce, come back try again. Got to come up with better counter arguements if you want to make a strong case for keeping things as they are. Traidor, you're right on the button with that post "Argument is weak sauce" is a non-argument, merely a refutation. If you disagree then explain why rather than merely dismissing it because you don't agree but don't know how to disprove.
Lear Hepburn Caldari Ascendant Strategies Inc. The Transcendent	Posted - 2009.10.21 20:53:00 - [7] Originally by: Lemmy Kravitz Edited by: Lemmy Kravitz on 21/10/2009 20:34:29 because it's been explained before in this thread in earlier posts in different ways over and over again. The pro-NS group has gotten to the point where they are using circular logic to keep thier end of the debate up and I'm getting tired of shooting down the same nonpoints worded differently over and over again. Like a circle baby, right round, round round. "CCP said so" "There is already competition" "There is already risk" "There is no RL comparisons" All of these have been brought up many times in many ways and each disproven soundly, just take the time to read the thread. The arguments on both sides are ultimately circular and self-serving. Neither side has much risk (be honest now, you'd have to be an idiot to lose a ship mission running) but both are after the same reward, hence the dissatisfaction. The fact is that there will be a stable point where there are enough salvagers to sustain themselves but not so many that mission running is pointless. Where exactly you stand on that scale is up to you, the player; there are plenty of ways a MR can not be preyed upon by salvagers and they have all been mentioned (non-hub missioning, bring a friend etc), and there are ways to get better at salvaging (scanning skills and ability, ship choice and fittings etc). The pro-MR group use similar circular logic and real-life arguments to try and justify change, whereas ultimately the decision is down to how CCP want the game to go (NB "want it to go", not "as it is"): players helping themselves or mechanics helping players. Now I've taken part in these debates aplenty (just ask Fullmetal) and the conclusion I've come to is that fairness could be acheived by adding a short ownership timer (15-30 minutes dependant on the mission) and then making wrecks FFA when the timer runs out, but you also make all wrecks hang around for longer (4 hours or so) and be scannable. You'd then give the MRs their chance to get the salvage from the wrecks they created unmolested for a time, but also increase the total amount of wrecks available because non-salvaging MRs would leave mission sites full of juicy wrecks which would also be scanned down, thereby reducing the relative number of salvagers per running mission. Win-win situation.
Lear Hepburn Caldari Ascendant Strategies Inc. The Transcendent	Posted - 2009.10.23 02:32:00 - [8] Originally by: Lemmy Kravitz Lemmy has no problem with making wrecks scannable if you make salvaging a wreck that you didn't put dps on a flagging offense. But only for a short period of time
Lear Hepburn Caldari Ascendant Strategies Inc. The Transcendent	Posted - 2009.10.24 06:50:00 - [9] Originally by: Jarvis Hellstrom Originally by: Markus Reese Like the timer being from creation to when person leaves. Cannot argue they didn't abandon it when they are not there ^.^ I'd say a little longer than that. It's reality that making a MR ship also a salvager hits the efficiency of both hard. Also if it's just until he leaves, that's very abuseable with alts and the like. Make it a flat time, perhaps an hour (half the life of the wreck). If he takes too long to finish the room, the ninjas are go and he cannot keep them out just by leaving a fleeted 14 day free alt in a noobship sitting. An hour is way too long. It should be dependant on the number of enemies in the room and should be set such that it forces the MR to go and get his salvage ship each time he clears the room or he loses rights. So if it takes the average MR 20 mins to clear the room then ownership should be 35 minutes. Also, increasing the lifetime of wrecks (to maybe 4 hours) and making them scannable means more targets for salvagers. Only a subset of those targets will be active missions, meaning that the longer the life of the wreck the smaller the subset of active missions, therefore the less active missions will be targetted.
Lear Hepburn Caldari Ascendant Strategies Inc. The Transcendent	Posted - 2009.10.26 00:23:00 - [10] Originally by: Fullmetal Jackass Originally by: Dacryphile The best (and most EVE like) solution would simply be a first come first on any and all ships destroyed, NPC or player, for both loot and salvage. Then there wouldn't be any ambiguity at all. And then we'd be right back to 2003. We want the game to advance. I suppose you wanna take jump gates out too? Make Battle ships back into solo pwn machines so no one flies anything else? How about putting nano ships back in? Bring back the Nos Domi? I know, lets let privateers war dec the entire world again. Slippery slope argument used to build strawmen. You can do better. Quote: Can mechanics got changed for a reason. Salvage mechanics followed the same rules till CCP stealth patched them. You'll notice alot of complaints about current salvage mechanics. These are the EXACT same issues that brought on can flagging, which worked just fine for nearly 3 years. Cans and wrecks are different items; perhaps CCP want them treated differently.
Lear Hepburn Caldari Ascendant Strategies Inc. The Transcendent	Posted - 2009.10.27 07:56:00 - [11] Edited by: Lear Hepburn on 27/10/2009 07:58:21 Originally by: Fullmetal Jackass In summary: NPCs can't or wont claim leftovers. Players can lay claim to leftovers. Nicely put. Now explain why that claim should be legal for one player and not for another, given that the governments "don't care" about the salvage. Why would they back up one person's claim over another if they "don't care"?
Lear Hepburn Caldari Ascendant Strategies Inc. The Transcendent	Posted - 2009.10.27 18:35:00 - [12] Originally by: Fullmetal Jackass Did you read all of post 263? Yes? Read it again. Still confused? Point out the disconnect and I'll try to clarify. Yes, I read it. The "disconnect" is the number of unsubstantiated assumptions you make. For example: Quote: Who's left to claim the leftovers? It certainly wouldn't be FFA, governments don't work like that. So it would probably fall to whichever corp issued the mission. They turn everything they don't claim in their contract over to the mission runner. Several contracts state "We want X item. The rest you can do with as you please." If it's not stated it's by tacit agreement. You claim that ownership probably falls to the corp (reference?) which turns it over to the MR (reference?). I know that several contracts explicitly state that you can do whatever you please with the rest of the loot, but they don't explicitly state salvage. And "tacit agreements" aren't worth the code they're not written in ;)
Lear Hepburn Caldari Ascendant Strategies Inc. The Transcendent	Posted - 2009.10.27 18:45:00 - [13] Originally by: Fullmetal Jackass So if a pirate dies comitting a crime, his ship chunks, from a ship loaned to him by his outlaw corp, go to his momma? Ship chunks his corp can't claim because they are in empire space under my guns, I'll add. Correct. And if the salvage is caught in my salvage beam then you can't take it from me either. Feel free to shoot though ;)
Lear Hepburn Caldari Ascendant Strategies Inc. The Transcendent	Posted - 2009.10.28 16:26:00 - [14] Originally by: Fullmetal Jackass There you go playing sea lawyer. We're talking RP justification of game mechnics based on backstory and RL precedent. There's no eve law book. You're trying to overcomplicate a simple issue. If a battle took place inside the boarders of your country, who would claim all the functioning and non functioning equipment? Your government. They'd take it for use, study, or sell it off for scrap. The central governments of the empires in Eve don't care about ship leftovers. The mega corps are the next step in the government, this is backed by cannon. They would lay claim to anything they thought had worth. They're greedy like that. But why bother to collect a bunch of equipment they have no use for, when they can just turn it over to thier merc as part of his payment? Quite a few mission descriptions state exactly this. Loot has always worked this way. Standard operationg procedure has been long established. Unless stated otherwise, the wreckage of defeated ships becomes the property of the mission runner by tacit agreement. There is no actual contract of course. It's a game, mechanics just need a plausable explanation. There's more then enough to support salvage component ownership. Well so long as you admit that you're simply making it up then that's fine. It holds as much water as any made-up, fluff reason though (i.e. none) Quote: If there is a normal opperating procedure, it's assumed to be in effect unless otherwise stated. If you don't disagree with the norm, you've given tacit agreement. Look it up. There is no norm. Like I said, salvage is not explicitly stated so any "norm" you are referring to is simply based on your own fluff. Quote: I call BS. Yer just bein purposely obtuse again. The ship belonged to an outlaw corp. It was used in a crime. Anyone sent to claim the pieces would be arrested, and unable to even make a claim of ownership. Any one of these is grounds for forfeiture of ownership. It wouldn't go to the pilots mom. You can call Dreadnaught if you like (see what I did there?), it doesn't make it so. Given that you are also trying to claim the pieces why aren't you arrested? Or are you saying that vigilanitsm (because that's what this is) allows you to claim the stuff belonging to the perp?
Lear Hepburn Caldari Ascendant Strategies Inc. The Transcendent	Posted - 2009.10.29 07:14:00 - [15] Originally by: Navell Phora Ninja salvaging can be a real profession in even and instead of new breed of care bears we would have more pvpers. Given that ninja salvaging only works in this way in hisec where the carebears are anyway, "stealing" from those same carebears, I find this very funny!
Lear Hepburn Caldari Ascendant Strategies Inc. The Transcendent	Posted - 2009.10.29 07:21:00 - [16] Edited by: Lear Hepburn on 29/10/2009 07:21:51 Originally by: Fullmetal Jackass I'm not making it up. I'm going off of real life example as it would fit into the established fiction of the Eve universe. It's called precedent. Look it up. A precedent from real life? That works in a game Quote: Salavage hasn't be long established. Especially with the rate of change in this game. Wrecks started with ownership. They still have ownership. It's the flagging mechanic that got broken. You're twisting words. status quo and tacit agreement don't apply to current salavage mechanics. Your broken mechanic is my intentional one - you're twisting words too, so enough with the hypocrisy there please. Why do you get to say where status quo and tacit agreement apply? Surely that's CCP's job? Oh, I forgot, "daddy said so" isn't an argument - unless you say it is, right? Quote: The most certainly is a norm. The "loot" from wrecks, meaning anything and everything of value has always been considered to belong to the mission runner. It's only since they added salvagable components (which are also loot) that there has been a question, and that question only came up after they broke the flag. Again, twisting words. "your red is my new blue" yeah, not really basis for anything. Twisting the meaning of the word loot there. We all know that loot comes in cans. Salvageable components are not loot until they are salvaged. Quote: I think CCP's finally gotten the idea anyway, so play whatever games you like, it wont matter. Loot mechanics are already gettin changed. Link?
Lear Hepburn Caldari Ascendant Strategies Inc. The Transcendent	Posted - 2009.10.29 07:28:00 - [17] Originally by: Navell Phora Originally by: Lear Hepburn Originally by: Navell Phora Ninja salvaging can be a real profession in even and instead of new breed of care bears we would have more pvpers. Given that ninja salvaging only works in this way in hisec where the carebears are anyway, "stealing" from those same carebears, I find this very funny! So you are against pvp in hi sec? Not at all. I am against protecting carebear mission-runners and their overinflated hisec soloed level 4 profits. Ninja salvaging hits their wallets, and that hurts them, as evidenced by the whining seen here. One thing they seem totally unwilling to do is move to losec in order to be able to defend those profits though - odd, no?
Lear Hepburn Caldari Ascendant Strategies Inc. The Transcendent	Posted - 2009.10.29 07:52:00 - [18] Originally by: Navell Phora To me that's a yes. Oh, right, so maybe I should just let you answer your own questions in future Quote: If ninjas could be attacked there is the chance of ninja going to get his pvp ship and coming back. If mission runner had retrieved his pvp ship as well all would be perfect imho. The current system doesn't allow this to happen. Not all PvP is pewpew. Quote: Mission runners don't use scrams so it is quite easy for the ninja to escape. If anything the risk is on the mission runner's side. In other words the risk on mission runners side would increase but with no chance of more profit. For ninjas there would be increased risk for and more isk. Isk for risk! The end result would be more pvp in hi sec. By being against ninja agression you are also against pvp in hi sec. Simple. Read my earlier posts. I am for short timers fot ownership (allowing PvP but preventing the carebear from keeping all of "his" salvage) and scannable wrecks. Like I said, not all PvP is pewpew. There are other ways to hurt people (financially, in this case) and this is also PvP. BTW, simply saying it isn't PvP doesn't make it so - all warfare is essentially economic, so this is warfare.
Lear Hepburn Caldari Ascendant Strategies Inc. The Transcendent	Posted - 2009.10.29 08:34:00 - [19] Originally by: Lemmy Kravitz Only thing I see you protecting is the ninjasalvager from potential horrible and scary ganking and pvp. If you aren't willing to PvP a mission runner for a "valuable" resource then guess what. You don't deserve it. And if you aren't willing to hit losec to secure your rewards then neither do you. Cuts both ways.
Lear Hepburn Caldari Ascendant Strategies Inc. The Transcendent	Posted - 2009.10.29 17:37:00 - [20] Originally by: Navell Phora Can't see anything pvp related in your post except that "ninjas must be protected from it". Ninjas must be protected from it if mission runners are - that's my point.
Lear Hepburn Caldari Ascendant Strategies Inc. The Transcendent	Posted - 2009.10.29 18:18:00 - [21] Originally by: Kzintee Except that walking into a mission, hacking a can with mission objective items is considered griefing unless you offer it back to the missioner at reasonable cost. This to me implies that missioner DOES own the items. If they did not, there would be no penalty for taking them. The items belong to the corp the MR is working for. You are stealing from the corp, not the MR, therefore CCP is imposing a penalty by an NPC entity.
Lear Hepburn Caldari Ascendant Strategies Inc. The Transcendent	Posted - 2009.10.29 23:00:00 - [22] Originally by: Kzintee What, tank doesn't work on NS ships? Or do you tank with your hi slots that are filled with salvagers? Also, according to Ash's message, you have to fall asleep to lose NS ship too. While I would lend more credibility to Kahega's post...when's the last time you lost yours? I've come close due to the MR running. Not actually lost one yet though. And no, tank doesn't work well on a much smaller ship when in a level 4.
Lear Hepburn Caldari Ascendant Strategies Inc. The Transcendent	Posted - 2009.10.29 23:29:00 - [23] So in a well fit and run ship ninja salvaging is riskless? I can buy that if you accept that in a well fit and run ship mission-running is riskless.
Lear Hepburn Caldari Ascendant Strategies Inc. The Transcendent	Posted - 2009.10.30 00:07:00 - [24] Originally by: Kzintee Originally by: Lear Hepburn So in a well fit and run ship ninja salvaging is riskless? I can buy that if you accept that in a well fit and run ship mission-running is riskless. That's not quite what I'm implying. You still have risk if you choose to NS in active mission. But you still have a 0 risk case: NS in finished pocket. I have just eliminated your biggest risk though...Recon 3. Not sure about "elimintated". Reduced, perhaps. But then any well fit and run ship is all about reducing the risk in whatever you are doing. Salvaging in a finished pocket is not ninjaing - it's a finished pocket.
Lear Hepburn Caldari Ascendant Strategies Inc. The Transcendent	Posted - 2009.10.30 07:48:00 - [25] Originally by: Navell Phora Originally by: Lear Hepburn Salvaging in a finished pocket is not ninjaing - it's a finished pocket. The location of the mission runner makes no difference whether it is ninja salvaging or something else. And a pocket is never "finished" or "in progress", that's just one of your own terms which you invent as you go. It's ninja salvaging and true care bearism in that. Read above - I didn't make up the term. Quote: Losing a salvager ship is far harder than losing a mission ship. The essence of being a ninja is the care bearing aspect that concord protects you and that risks are non existetnt. Same risks to the MR. Same carebearism.
Lear Hepburn Caldari Ascendant Strategies Inc. The Transcendent	Posted - 2009.10.30 07:54:00 - [26] Originally by: Kzintee The above setup will allow you to get out of Recon 3. How is that not eliminating the risk of blowing up when you get into R3? All you have to do is point the ship at the exit gate, hit AB and then hit "Activate Gate" about 45 seconds later. Oh, a walkthrough! Like I said, a well run ship. I can give you a setup, ship and walkthrough which will allow you to complete pretty much any mission up to level 4 solo. Does that mean that mission runners have no risk now? Quote: THe point of this conversation is not whether it's NS if MR is out of the pocket or not...it's whether it's NS if you take any of MRs wrecks. And thus the location of MR on the grid doesn't particularly matter, it's still NS. You're the one who brought the term "finished pocket" up. Yes, if the MR is on grid then it's NS. If he's not though, surely anything goes? And they aren't he MRs wrecks! How many times does that have to be said. This may change, but right now, under the current system of laws/rules/whatever, they aren't yours.
Lear Hepburn Caldari Ascendant Strategies Inc. The Transcendent	Posted - 2009.10.30 08:00:00 - [27] Originally by: Fullmetal Jackass Risk from NPC ships isnt the risk most of us are talking about with ninja salvaging. We want the risk of loss, annoyance, and inconvence to go both ways. Ninja salvaging is a hostile act. It's parasitic to say the least. A ninja spends all his time hunting mission runners. Why doesn't it go the other way? Cheap salvage ship. No loss there. No time investment in the wrecks, a ninja doesn't spend grind standing, doesn't lose standing, doesn spend on ammo or repairs, doesn't need nearly as much training time or equipment. The ninja has nothing to lose but his ship. And the only way he can currently lose that is to an NPC. Not likely. Actually I was talking about the fact that Concord protects the MR as well. He makes as much profit from MR in hisec as in losec, but in hisec he gets Concord protection. The same is true for the NS. I agree that the NS makes life a little less rosy for the MR by reducing his profits slightly, but the protection they get from Concord and the chances of losing the ship to NPCs (assuming both have a well set up ship that they know how to use) is almost zero unless either one falls asleep. Quote: Lets make it so the mission runner can hunt ninjas as well. I also vote we cause wrecks to provide 5 to 10 times the compenents. When the market crashes and combat pilots can shoot back, maybe the risk to reward for salvaging will be balanced. Only if PC pirates can hunt MRs in hisec. Why should the MR be the only ones to get the option to start hostilities? Quote: Most people were perfectly happy before salvage. We could always go back to that. Unnerf bounties and mission payouts while your at it. You all like moving the game backwards. Works for me. "Most people"? I'd like some evidence that there's more than a vociferous few who aren't happy with the current mechanic, and also that there were less moans beforehand!
Lear Hepburn Caldari Ascendant Strategies Inc. The Transcendent	Posted - 2009.10.30 08:32:00 - [28] Originally by: Fullmetal Jackass The mission runner has more chance of losing a ship 100 times more valuable then the ninja's to NPCs. The mission runner also has the risk of some asshat coming in and causing even more loss. The ninja on the other hand has the chance to make almost as much, if not as much per hour as the MR, but without the risk of anyone hunting him. All with no faction grinding and minimal skills training. Risk vs reward isn't even remotely the same. It's not about chance, it's about the numbers. A well run and fitted MR ship has almost no chance of being killed because it has been fitted to tank whatever is there. I have taken my own tanked up Drake into L4s and just sat there soaking up the damage. If tank > incoming DPS then risk = zero.
Lear Hepburn Caldari Ascendant Strategies Inc. The Transcendent	Posted - 2009.10.30 17:29:00 - [29] Originally by: Fullmetal Jackass And a ninja has far less chance of losing almost nothing, with nearly the same income as a mission runner. I never said missions were high risk. I said ninja salvaging risk/vs reward was off the scale stupid imbalanced. Neither really have any risk of losing if they are both awake and decently fit for what they are doing. A poorly fit NS will make bugger all cash, as will a poorly fit MR. Originally by: Navell Phora Concord protects everyone equally. The point is that ninja salvager steals the wreck and concord protects him against the mission runner who may want to protect his property. It should be that concord protects only the ones who have done nothing wrong, wrong in the "game's moral code". No, Concord protects nobody. Concord punishes those who attack others without the right to do so, and "the right to do so" is defined by Concord and, ultimately, CCP. Originally by: Navell Phora Hi sec needs less security and more common sense and this whole ninja salvaging debacle is just plain absurd. The whole idea that loot is yours but the wreck is not goes against common sense. Appeal to "common sense" regarding a law? Pointless both here and IRL. As the man said, "the law is an ass." I agree that HiSec needs less security though. I say that we make all L4 and above missionspace losec or lower - I can even provide fluff for it if you like! Originally by: Kzintee You don't want to go down that path 'cause you're going to rack up ISK bill pretty quick on a ship like that. I've already given you a fair estimate for what a mission ship costs that can do lvl4s with careful aggro management. I hear NSs *** about Recon 3. I just gave you a setup that allows NS but still gets you out of Recon 3 alive. What's the problem? I'm not telling you to use some 100mil faction pimpmobile with deadspace gear. It's a t2 stabber. It's not really a "well-run" ship, it's a tool for the job. Just like everything else. You don't NS in a BS and you don't MR in a ceptor, wrong tools. My point is that a correctly fit mission ship which is operated well (what I mean by "well run") has as much risk as a NS. Originally by:** Kzintee Except ownership of wrecks is the point. You can't be a ninja if wrecks are FFA. You can't tractor a wreck, it's yellow to you, it has my corp tag on it. Still think it's yours? Loot it and find out. The ambiguity is the problem. So separate teh loot from the wreck and remove ownership - what's the problem? Originally by: Kzintee But we're now talking about risk vs reward. When MR has left the pocket, it's like a lunch buffet for NS. I can't realistically fit salvagers to my boats. Do you have any idea how fast Nightmare kills things? Or what the preferred orbit is for NPCs or different types? Tractors and salvagers don't help when your wreck is 50km away, and you have 1 unbonused salvager to work with. Fitting like this kills completion time (which now has nothing to do with risk at all, simply inconvinience to MR just because NSs are around) and removes the need for flying a mid end ships as well as some higher end ones. Marauders and t3 all around, hooray! So your problem is that you can't salvage fast enough, reducing your ISK/hour? Boo hoo! Either you take the time get the cash or you don't and leave it to the possible predations of the NS - that's the risk vs reward. Originally by: Kzintee Edit: Like I said, salvagers already have a mini profession, its called exploration. Utilizes your probing skills as well as salvaging/hacking. What...too hard? Not enough ISK? It's a mini profession, you shouldn't be getting paid as much as you are now for it. So your problem is that I make too much cash? Seriously, that is simply not the case - your problem is really that you think I'm stealing what is rightfully yours, when really it isn't at all at the moment. What you need to do is justify why it should rightfully be yours - something nobody has yet done.
Lear Hepburn Caldari Ascendant Strategies Inc. The Transcendent	Posted - 2009.10.30 17:37:00 - [30] Originally by: Kzintee Now try killing something in that drake of yours. Come to think of it, no wonder you tell people to fit salvagers on their ships...as slowly as your drake would kill things you'd have time to fly to any wreck and clean it with just 1 salv module as well as go get some coffee. But not everyone flies that way. Your fault for flying "wrong tools for the job". Been there and done it and managed to get the salvage too. The Drake was an old ship which was the right tool at the time as it was the best I could use. All a bit OT though - my point was that it was zero risk as tank > dps.
Lear Hepburn Caldari Ascendant Strategies Inc. The Transcendent	Posted - 2009.10.30 19:43:00 - [31] Originally by: Jarvis Hellstrom Salvage really does require some kind of separate mechanic, but the thing is - so does loot. The mechanic for them should be the same. I think this is the root of the issue - the assumption that the mechanic should be the same. Why should it?
Lear Hepburn Caldari Ascendant Strategies Inc. The Transcendent	Posted - 2009.10.30 21:39:00 - [32] Originally by: Jarvis Hellstrom Quote: Seriously, that is simply not the case - your problem is really that you think I'm stealing what is rightfully yours, when really it isn't at all at the moment. What you need to do is justify why it should rightfully be yours - something nobody has yet done. Oh it's been done. Time and time and time again from many different angles and perspectives. You just don't want it to be true so no argument of any kind (no matter how rational) will ever be good enough for you. No, it hasn't. If so then please give one example of where a completely non-biased, non-circular, rational and self-evident reason for the mission runner to own the wrecks. "Increasing PvP" fails as there is opportunity for PvP if the MR wants to go and run missions in losec; any comparison with real life fails because Eve is not real life; "common sense" fails because laws are often not sensible in this way; "it's theft" fails because it isn't unless CCP say it is. Now I agree that it could be clearer: the apparent "ownership" of wrecks makes it unclear that all the "owner" can do with it that anyone else can't is tractor it or destroy it. That is a matter of perception though: while the "owner" does own the wreck, nobody owns the salvage inside it until it is acted upon by the salvager module. There is a difference between a wreck and salvage which is important and demonstrable: salvage a wreck and jettison what you get - it's in a jetcan and will flag people who try to take it!
Lear Hepburn Caldari Ascendant Strategies Inc. The Transcendent	Posted - 2009.10.30 22:30:00 - [33] Edited by: Lear Hepburn on 30/10/2009 22:30:53 Originally by: AsheraII Originally by: Lear Hepburn There is a difference between a wreck and salvage which is important and demonstrable: salvage a wreck and jettison what you get - it's in a jetcan and will flag people who try to take it! Well, though I'm on the same side you are in this discussion, I'm not sure this is a proper example, since the same applies to loot: steal some loot from a can, jettison it, and anyone taking from it will be flagged to you as well. EVE doesn't keep track of "previous owner rights", except some logs to trace ISK traders and hackers (the account stealing kind, not the exploration kind) That is absolutely true, but loot also starts out in a can. This is also demonstrable by first salvaging a wreck which has loot in it - you are left with the can of loot.
Lear Hepburn Caldari Ascendant Strategies Inc. The Transcendent	Posted - 2009.10.31 10:25:00 - [34] Edited by: Lear Hepburn on 31/10/2009 10:26:20 Originally by: Navell Phora It only fails because you admit that ns are afraid of getting into pvp. Your only personal goal... First, I don't have a personal goal other than to keep things equitable. Second, as much as NS are afraid to PvP so are hisec mission runners, and that's why I'm not off-topic: if the MR has the option to stay PvP-free then so should the salvager. I still disagree that salvage and loot should have the same mechanic, and you are yet to explain why they should. One reason for why they shouldn't: variety and the mechanics this allows. Quote: And what ccp says now about the ninja salvaging is against common sense. Being against common sense is stupid because it is intellectually bugged and makes... Oh I know it doesn't make sense, but claiming it should make sense doesn't mean that it should. Many things in life don't and they are true - the duality of the photon is a fundamental law of the universe which makes no "common sense" whatsoever, but it is true. Quote: Their sole existence seem to be a huge problem for you. Umm, without the MR there would be no NS. You really should think before application of digits to the keyboard Quote: What you don't seem to understand is that being a ninja salvager you are the biggest care bear ever excisted in eve, not the mission runners who you seem to emohate soo deeply. I've NS's in losec. Many others have too. I terms of gameplay I try to minimise risk and maximise reward though, same as MRs. Therefore it makes far more sense to NS in hisec. Quote: But that's just a matter with _your_ perception. Using your own words "it is what it is because ccp said so". You say there is a problem with my perception but fail to demonstrate how, wheras I demonstrated the perceptual differences. Feel free to apply some standards to your arguments... As an aside, you seem to think I am anti-MR. This isn't the case - I do a bit of everything tbh. Mission running is very easy and very boring monkey-see-monkey-do stuff in the vast majority of cases; with NS at least you have to do some work to find the MR and get there before he's taken all the salvage. Also, you seem to be under the mistaken impression that the only form of PvP is pew-pew. PvP is financial as well - for example, the faster mining ship will take the ore first, profitting. The same is true of wrecks - get there first to take the salvage and profit. A better solution is the timed ownership (15mins or so) combined with scannable wrecks. PvP available to those who want it, temporary salvage rights for mission runners and vast fields of unowned wrecks for salvagers.
Lear Hepburn Caldari Ascendant Strategies Inc. The Transcendent	Posted - 2009.10.31 10:51:00 - [35] Originally by: Fullmetal Jackass Dude, talking to you is like talking to a rock. You live in your own little fantasy world. You should get out more. Starting out with personal attacks is always a good way to add weight to your argument. Well done. Quote: Fitting for salvage a no brainer. "Du-yah, should I fit a slavager and maybe a tractor beam george?" Mission fitting isn't exactly hard, but at least you have to figure it out and then put an expesive ship on the line. So you check battleclinic and buy some ISK? This is hard? Quote: You look down your nose all day at mission runners, yet ninjas are so far below them on the eve talent chart they're below the stuff under rocks that makes you wanna go "uuuuya" . Don't even compare the two play styles. Further personal attacks. Baseless too since you actully require more SP to start salvaging than to start MR. Quote: Of course people run missions because they are low risk. You don't make much in the long run with high risk options. Ninja salvaging is almost zero risk with the same income, AND it's a very low amount of isk and time risked. Plus you get to tick people off for free. Go play wow and gank some noobies or somthing. You'll get the same feeling. So MRs see a lower risk, same income option and get annoyed by it instead of trying it? That says more to me about the MR than it does about the NS. I tried WoW. Wish I hadn't. And "go play WoW" references are about on the same level as "go play Hello Kitty online" references.
Lear Hepburn Caldari Ascendant Strategies Inc. The Transcendent	Posted - 2009.10.31 21:59:00 - [36] Originally by: Kzintee You forgot the 3rd way to get salvage: Break out your scan probes, look for mag sites and salvage there. But nobody wants to do that since income is low (as it should be in a mini profession), competition exists and you need to go to lowsec to earn anything meaningful. So, naturally, that's too much work for not enough pay and NSes prefer to hit the major hubs instead. Correct, beacuse NSs aren't stupid. Just like MRs like to go to high quality agents because the rewards are higher, NSs like to go to places where the rewards from their efforts are higher. And I'm all for making ALL salvage scannable with a 15 minute ownership timer - win/win situation.
Lear Hepburn Caldari Ascendant Strategies Inc. The Transcendent	Posted - 2009.10.31 23:55:00 - [37] Originally by: Wiley Peterson Originally by: Lear Hepburn Correct, beacuse NSs aren't stupid. Oh please. Any idiot can ninja salvage. Congratulations on your ability to take parts of a post out of context - this is a skill the internet needs more of.
Lear Hepburn Caldari Ascendant Strategies Inc. The Transcendent	Posted - 2009.11.01 00:01:00 - [38] Originally by: Kzintee Ok, so what about those lvl5 missions. They are also run in hisec, as number of people will tell you. Should I attempt to please your theory to fitting a salvager to my NH instead of something useful like Drone Aug, or perhaps I need to make my alt train Caldari logistics (will YOU pay for 1.5 months of training?) because as it is right now I can't get more than 9km away from the logi, and those pesky inconsiderate NPCs orbit at 50km. You do know that it takes more than 15 minutes to do a lvl5, right? I'm already having to salvage with the logi ship, but NPCs aren't always considerate enough to orbit within 20km. Your problems are your own. If you bite off more than you chew then you only have yourself to blame. As for the 15 minute timer, if you look earlier in the thread I explain that it should be the average time taken to clear a room plus 15 minutes.
Lear Hepburn Caldari Ascendant Strategies Inc. The Transcendent	Posted - 2009.11.01 06:48:00 - [39] Edited by: Lear Hepburn on 01/11/2009 06:50:52 FMJ - As I said before, that's 15 minutes on top of the average time taken to clear the room. This is more than enough time for the MR to go back and get a salvage ship, return and at least get a good way into the wrecks. If he's sensible he'll leave the loot and take the wrecks to make it faster unless soething particularly juicy comes up. I agree that the lifetime of the wrecks should be increased too, making more non-active target fields and therefore reducing the chance of an active MR being hit. I do think that all wrecks should be scannable so that there is a chance of an innocent salvager turning up in a mission. With the flag timers the MR wouldn't know whether he was being salvaged by a NS or a pirate after a cheap wreck-flip, and the NS would have to choose to either risk it or find another field.
Lear Hepburn Caldari Ascendant Strategies Inc. The Transcendent	Posted - 2009.11.01 08:42:00 - [40] Edited by: Lear Hepburn on 01/11/2009 08:42:01 Originally by: Fullmetal Jackass Ok so you're at least bein reasonable. What's the average time to clear a room though, and who determines it? CCP, of course, and it would vary from mission to mission. They doubtless have this data, even in a raw form, and it would go in without you knowing what the timer was. It'd end up on battleclinic anyway, but it adds a bit of spice. Quote: If only wrecks with expired ownership were probe-able, the salvager could pick what he wanted to do without wasting time. Do I wanna ninja? Probe for mission ships. Do I wanna salvage abandoned wrecks and not get shot at? Probe for wrecks. I understand how you wanna mix it up with any wreck bein probe-able, but again, it probably makes it too easy to find a mission runner that way. On the other hand, I'm not entirely sure your intentions with this suggestion are honorable. It really is just to add a bit of risk to salvaging - you spend your time, you've found some wrecks, but the "owner" is there still: what do you do? Go for the wrecks in the hope the MR thinks you're a pirate or write of the time spent so far? I really don't see how this could be dishoborable. Yes, there will be people who pirate in this way - I may well try it myself! - but that's true in can flipping as well and, just like in can flipping for the miner, if you don't want the combat then don't shoot the player. Overall, I see this as win/win. MRs get the ownership for as long as is needed to salvage, salvagers get the ability to find wrecks even if there's no MR there, pirates get a new bait ability (other than taking lootcans) which may be misinterpreted by the prey. This solution, btw, should only apply to missions. Non-mission rats should stay as they are - we can use your made-up "transfer of rights from the corp" argument to back it up as fluff if you like
Lear Hepburn Caldari Ascendant Strategies Inc. The Transcendent	Posted - 2009.11.01 14:13:00 - [41] Quote: Most people in high sec aren't harming anyone else while under this protection. I disagree. Traders in hisec are harming not only other traders but those who buy their wares by upping prices. This is financial PvP. Same as NSing. That said, If FMJ and I can come to an agreement as to a decent resolution to this then I think that most reasonable people could agree to it!
Lear Hepburn Caldari Ascendant Strategies Inc. The Transcendent	Posted - 2009.11.02 07:02:00 - [42] Originally by: Fullmetal Jackass Leaving to come back in a salvage ship is already a gamble. You can't shoot a thief in a salvage ship. That's the risk of specialist ships. If you use "leaving" as the trigger then all that's needed is an alt on-grid. A timer works better for both sides.
Lear Hepburn Caldari Ascendant Strategies Inc. The Transcendent	Posted - 2009.11.02 18:46:00 - [43] Originally by: Navell Phora A timer works only for pvp scared ninja who want it really easy and who want to avoid pvp at all costs like you. All you want to achieve with this "timer" is to make ninja salvaging ever easier and even more profitable. More personal attacks. Well done. Also, how on earth does any kind of flag make things easier for the NS? Quote: What you seem to have a problem understanding is that a timer has only bad sides to it: - it encourages people to avoid pvp (instead of stealing and getting flagged you just wait) Thereby reducing isk/hour. Isn't the problem you have that the NS makes too much cash? Quote: - it is beneficial to ninjas to have a timer so they can avoid pvp and - it is also the best system for extreme care bear mission runners who run faction pimped marauders. They basically get total safety from stealing because they actually loot and salvage within that laughable 15 minute limit you are suggesting. Indeed it is good for marauders, since this is what marauders were designed for. Are you really having a go at people for using specialist ships for what they were meant for? Also, I ask again how any form of flag allows the NS to avoid PvP more than they do at the moment? Quote: - the whole idea of mission runner leaving the grid allowing ninja salvagers to take all with permission is yet one of your pretty ninja salvage carebear-emowin schemes. Try to get in your head that it is illogical (check dictionary for that word) for the loot to be treated differently than salvage. Try to get in your head that salvaging being a mini profession actually requires the mr to leave the grid to get his salvage boat. Gee, with the same idea you should lose all your stuff as you leave station. This wasn't my idea. I'm actually against this despite the fact that it is entirely logical (look it up yourself). Loot and wrecks are different - this is what you need to get into your head. Salvage doesn't exist until it has been recovered from a wreck, at which point it is owned. Quote: - it gets totally out of hand if you then made wrecks scannable with a timer. You'd have ninja in L3s and L2s and L1s where the income is relatively low. But extreme L4 mission runners would be protected. That depends on where you are doing missions/salvaging, surely? You can still get ninjas in L1-3; you don't because L4 are more profitable. Quote: It's one of your ninja salvage carebear safety features you seem to be pushing. A timer will be the ultimate I-win button for ninja carebears who want no risk and max income with least effort and chance for pvp. Not to mention the total safety for extreme mission runner carebears in their faction fitted marauders who would get totaly safety from stealing and thus also from pvp. If you were any more tranparent you'd be vacuum. No timers for extreme carebears. Give us tools to encourage pvp and make ninjas steal like proper thiefs with even better income. Hell, I'd give chance to ninja salvage just for the high sec pvp! Once more, how does adding any form of flag, timed or otherwise, reduce PvP? Currently there is no opportunity for PvP against a salvager; add a flag (timed or otherwise) and there is some. It seems to me that you want all your mission wrecks owned and salvaged by you no matter how long you take about it - and you dare to call me a carebear! Well, here's the scoop: no dice. There are people out there who want that stuff too, and you don't own the wrecks. My suggestion at least gives you some ownership for a limited period and, if you're so slow at running the mission that you don't get the salvage then that's your fault for biting off more than you can chew. At least under the timer system if you're good enough then you get the salvage.
Lear Hepburn Caldari Ascendant Strategies Inc. The Transcendent	Posted - 2009.11.03 07:15:00 - [44] Edited by: Lear Hepburn on 03/11/2009 07:16:09 Navell - you got so hooked up on the timer idea that you missed the fact that I want there to be a flag at all! Current situation: no PvP possible in hisec (except can-flips/suicide ganks) My suggestion: PvP possible in hisec with both people's consent (there's a novelty)! Your issue is that NS makes too much money. So I offer you a timed flag which reduces the ISK/hour for the NS (forcing him to choose between waiting lower ISK/hr for low risk or high ISK/hr risking PvP) by giving the MR 15 minutes of FREE ownership which he currently doesn't enjoy and you claim it'll reduce the ISK/hour of the MR - how, precisely? You misunderstand the timer concept - the wreck will not become FFA at 15 minutes. It will become FFA at the average time for room clearance as defined by CCP plus 15 minutes. For some rooms this could be an hour or so and nobody knows exactly when this timer will run out, especially the NS. You can still can-flip with wrecks if you wish. I disagree that the two mechanics should be homogenized. Salvage is not a wreck, salvage is in a wreck and needs to be acted on by a module to create it. Since the salvage doesn't exist until you act on it then how can you own it? What I want it the ability for consensual PvP for those that want it and also for those who do not to have the opportunity to carry on their mini-profession at a reduced isk/hr. This seems to be what the MR camp wants as well.
Lear Hepburn Caldari Ascendant Strategies Inc. The Transcendent	Posted - 2009.11.04 07:17:00 - [45] Originally by: Navell Phora If stealing the loot is theft but stealing the salvage isn't then the system is illogical. You are once again using the term contested rsource but you don't want real contest. You want to take it as you please, you want to be the one who controls when and where, and if, there is contest about it. A contest is a nice little word word which implies competition but you want to make it pure race about speed and avoid any chance of pvp. Salvage simply doesn't exist until a salvager acts on a wreck. That is the difference. You say there is no contest and then say it is a "pure race about speed". Contradict yourself much? PvP does not always mean pew pew.
Lear Hepburn Caldari Ascendant Strategies Inc. The Transcendent	Posted - 2009.11.04 12:24:00 - [46] Originally by: Navell Phora Yeah, it just happens to appear there when the salvager is turned on. Just like people on the scanner do not exist before you press "scan". Just like eve doesn't exist before you turn your comp on and log on... You know, the loot doesn't exist either until you take a peek what's in the wreck. It's all about the container, the wreck. No matter how many dev posts or quotes you copy paste it is still just as illogical. Actually, it works like ore. Ore does not exist as ore until an asteroid is acted on by a mining module; salvage does not exist as salvage until a wreck as acted on by a salvager; loot, however, exists as loot without you acting on it. This is demonstrable: go look inside a lootcan and you see loot. Look inside a wreck or an asteroid and you see nothing but the wreck or the asteroid until you act on the wreck or asteroid with an appropriate module. You simply saying it is "illogical" does not make it so - you have to say how it defies logic, and you have to do so in a way which is consistent. As I've shown here, in some ways salvage is more like ore than it is like loot. If you consider that there are mission-spawned asteroids then there are even more similarities. Are you suggesting that MRs should own these roids as well?
Lear Hepburn Caldari Ascendant Strategies Inc. The Transcendent	Posted - 2009.11.04 12:34:00 - [47] Originally by: Fullmetal Jackass CPP says brings no weight to the discussion. We can argue, and have argued back and forth over it to no end. NS is a broken mechanic. Prove otherwise or go home. On the contrary, "CCP says" is the law. CCP define the laws of physics (max speed in space?) as much as the laws of governance in the Eve universe. That is beside the point though, because CCP are capable of changing their mind. NS is not broken - it works precisely as intended. You just think it is broken because you don't like it.
Lear Hepburn Caldari Ascendant Strategies Inc. The Transcendent	Posted - 2009.11.04 14:38:00 - [48] Originally by: Fullmetal Jackass As intended maybe, but not as orginally advertised. So the game has progressed. You have a problem with this? Many things in the game are not as originally advertised. Quote: "CCP says" brings nothing to the discussion of whether or not change should be made. Was everything your mamma ever told you correct? Status quo is not always correct. Like I said, "CCP said" is beside the point. My mamma didn't actually form and control this universe though, unlike CCP does with New Eden.
Lear Hepburn Caldari Ascendant Strategies Inc. The Transcendent	Posted - 2009.11.04 14:53:00 - [49] Well at least you admit that the game is working as intended now. I know this was not your only argument, but none of the others are self-consistent either. They focus on either jealousy that the NS is making so much cash for a new player or some perceived (and now shown to be incorrect) notion that wrecks are owned. And yes, umpires have been shown to be wrong, but your analogy misses the mark once more. In the case of New Eden, CCP is God. It's irrelevant whether or not you believe in a god in our universe, for New Eden CCP takes that role in a biblical sense.
Lear Hepburn Caldari Ascendant Strategies Inc. The Transcendent	Posted - 2009.11.04 16:58:00 - [50] Originally by: Fullmetal Jackass God is all knowing, and by that definition will never make a bad call. CCP devs are men just like you and me. They can be wrong. Outside in the real world that is true, but in the Eve universe it is not. And we could have a whole argument about "God can be wrong" on a different thread if you like Originally by: Navell Phora Yeah, ccp says so it is what it is and can't be wrong or illogical be ccp is the always right and unquestioned and whatever. That's what your only argument is, "but ccp said... and it is what it is" and then you think you have made a point. Actually, I said that what CCP say doesn't matter. You really should try reading posts before responding to them. Quote: i think you are just trolling. I've said it trillion times that it is illogical for loot and salvage to be treated differently. Your only answer is just "that's the way it is", or ccp said and so forth. That's not an argument. You just keep digging these "ore examples" from your pocket of bad jokes. For a while they were funny but now it's like a joke you have heard millions of times... You can say it an infinite number of times, it doesn't make it any more true. You have to show how the treatment of loot and wrecks is illogical. You see that bit in the post of mine you quoted where I demonstrated how there are more similarities between roids and wrecks? That's what we like to call an "argument" backed up with "evidence". If you wish to refute that argument then you need to provide contrary evidence, not simply say "[robot voice]Illogical! Illogical![/robot voice]".
Lear Hepburn Caldari Ascendant Strategies Inc. The Transcendent	Posted - 2009.11.04 17:03:00 - [51] Originally by: Fullmetal Jackass Then why didn't they man up and state it up front? Show me a dev blog anywhere that says "salvage will be ffa". Whether they said it bofore or not, they say it now. The game progresses and evolves. Stop living in the past
Lear Hepburn Caldari Ascendant Strategies Inc. The Transcendent	Posted - 2009.11.04 17:27:00 - [52] Originally by: Fullmetal Jackass Edited by: Fullmetal Jackass on 04/11/2009 17:23:40 Why does it feel like I'm covering the same ground over and over and over again? Oh wait, I am. It's because your arguments are circular. To be fair, most arguments either way are. The fact is though that the current mechanic allows there to be a financial PvP impact on what is an otherwise entirely PvE experience (mission running). NS is PvP between both the NS and MR and between NSs in that the faster and better scanner and salvager gets the salvage - same way that mining is PvP.
Lear Hepburn Caldari Ascendant Strategies Inc. The Transcendent	Posted - 2009.11.05 21:26:00 - [53] @ Jarvis Hellstrom Yes, people lobby to have laws changed, but lobbying does not always work. That's because what some people think are stupid laws others think are perfectly reasonable. I've explained to you why I think that the ownership of wrecks should stay as it is, and you disagree, but you simply disagreeing does not make my stance illogical. In Eve the government does not pay you to kill the bad guys: corps do. In Eve, the "bionic eyes" are not always worth 10 times the loot - the total of the salvage from a mission is often lucrative, but on an individual basis, unless you get something fairly rare (compared to the other stuff) it's often almost worthless. You take it though because it takes up far less hold space than loot, and therefore per m^3 it is valuable. To take your analogy, instead of bionic eyes I'd say teeth which can be taken by anyone with training in and equipment for dentistry - without the training and the equipment you can't even look into their mouths! Now most of the teeth are worthless, but occassionally you find a gold one, and that makes all the dentistry worth it. The corp has still paid you to kill the guy, and still said you can have his stuff, but nobody has jurisdiction over the body and so the corp cannot promise it to you. The thing is, in order to find out if the body even has any teeth you need to have the dentist training and equipment with you. Since nobody has jurisdiction over the corpse it's free for all. Any analogy can be made as an example. Doubtless you or someone else will say "that's a stupid analogy" because they disagree with it. I could have done the same with yours (especially the bionic eyes ) but chose instead to show that argument by analogy is fairly pointless. Originally by: Jarvis Hellstrom In game, the mission runners would complain to the governments who would complain to Concord who would (probably) eventually change the law because the Mission Runners are an important government resource. The "probably" is your weak link. Mining is an important government resource; trading is arguably the biggest government resource. By your argument can-flipping and suicide ganking would have been banned ages ago. They haven't been. Quote: Out of game, simply because it's stupid and counterintuitive. To you. To me it makes perfect sense as I have explained before. Which of us is right? Whoever CCP decides, is ultimately the answer. And that's not a "daddy said so", it's an acceptance that even if I think my argument is better than yours, were things to go your way I would have the right to lobby all I liked, but I would also have to accept it if CCP said "that's how it is". They have recently done so in this case.
Lear Hepburn Caldari Ascendant Strategies Inc. The Transcendent	Posted - 2009.11.05 22:17:00 - [54] Originally by: Jarvis Hellstrom No. 'Brutor Tribe' may be listed under the corporation tab but it is part of the Matari government. The FIO, which hands out missions in Gallente space is MOST DEFINITELY an arm of the Federation government. This is true for the Spacelane Patrol, the Caldari Navy and many others. Ishukone is a corporation. The Gallente Federal Intelligence Organization is not. CCP just cannot be bothered to differentiate between them on tabs (and I can't say as I blame them either). Oh I'm sorry, I was wrong in a few cases. This is hardly relevant to the point in question though. Quote: Quote: Which of us is right? Whoever CCP decides, is ultimately the answer. No, actually. CCP saying X, Y or Z, simply means that's what their current public position is at present. It doesn't make anyone 'right'. Yes, actually. CCP are the literal Gods of the Eve universe. Whatever they say is right is, by definition, right. They decide. Like I said, we can lobby all we like but, like a judge in the courtroom, what they say goes. Quote: I have asked them flat out for the rationale behind their statement. If they can answer those four questions intelligently, then they can be 'right'. Yeah, i gave you some answers there. I would be surprised if you get any from them though. Quote: Until then, game owners or no, their stance is, as far as I am concerned simply flat out STUPID. It damages their game and is both illogical and non-sensical (don't bother trying to defend it, your logic makes as much sense to me as if you tried to tell me red is black - we are never going to agree on those points of view). It is neither illogical nor non-sensical until you show it to be. You've said the "illogical" thing many times but not once have you shown it to be the case. Inconsistent? Maybe. Illogical? No. Quote: Game designers and owners do stupid things now and again. Sometimes it's tragic enough to bring their company down. CCP isn't going to go out of business because of NS stupidity, but it will cost them customers and revenue. It may gain them some too. Only CCP can say which reigns supreme. If they make enough bad decisions like that, it could cost them their game. It has happened in the past to other companies. I like EVE a lot, but really stupid pronouncements like what they gave to poor Incognito to hand out doesn't help their case as regards convincing me to continue giving them money. It's not enough to make me quit or anything either, but it does most certainly annoy me. Whether or not it's a bad decision only time, rather than your or my pronouncements, will tell.
Lear Hepburn Caldari Ascendant Strategies Inc. The Transcendent	Posted - 2009.11.05 23:05:00 - [55] It wasn't relevant to the point in question that you were right in a few cases. CCP can force you to do whatever they want to in-game unless, as you say, you leave. Suicide is an option against he judge, too. You and a lot of other people are the customers. It's all of us they have to satisfy. That you don't like the answers doesn't mean they aren't answers. And it's your opinion (and that's all it is) that the concept is illogical. And you're right - trying to explain the concept of logic to you is a waste of both our time.
Lear Hepburn Caldari Ascendant Strategies Inc. The Transcendent	Posted - 2009.11.06 18:15:00 - [56] Originally by: Trigos Trilobi Originally by: Kzintee Salvaging, as it is right now, is not a mini profession with regards to income. Its barrier of entry is ridiculously low, its income potential is ridiculously high. 7 days (and that's with scanning skills to 3 or 4) and you're in it. Considering how much salvage is worth, there's definitely something wrong here. That is an issue that should be fixed by increasing the supply, not shifting the supply into fewer hands. Salvage doesn't have a set price, the price is completely player driven. If it's too high, it's an argument for increasing supply or reducing demand, not for flagging. This is true. Increase supply to satisfy demand and you get lower prices. An alternativ would be to reduce demand by making rigs use less of each component, but I suspect that a supply increase would be easier to implement. We could call it Quantitative Easing

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.