|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Skex Relbore
Gallente
Red Federation
   |
Posted - 2011.04.25 21:03:00 -
[1]
 Ninja Salvaging is a legitmate mechanic because the devs like to make life easy on griefers in the game because if people had to actually take some risks and put a little work into being asshats the game might lose some of it's "dark harsh universe" feel
It's a stupid rational that should be done away with but won't be because the devs are the biggest griefers in the game.
Salvage is spoils of war, The capsuleer who goes out and kills the pirates are not criminals operating lawlessly killing random people they are licensed privateers operating under a legitimate charter that is sanctioned by the legitimate legal authorities (Concord). The Pirates are legitmate targets because they are criminals and the faction navies are legal combatants as such they are not offered protection by Concord and you can blow them up and they can blow you up with impunity.
However Ninja Salvaging is theft I don't give a crap what CCP says or how many rationalizations Tippia wants to make. The wrecks generated by the mission runner are spoils of war just like the modules and ammo left inside the wreck.
Now whether one should be able to claim those spoils should be based upon whether you can defend them. Unfortunately rather than doing the rational thing and having salvage flag for aggression like any other theft CCP has chosen to leave that protection intact allowing the Ninja to operate with impunity and the full weight of Concord protection.
And don't give me that nonsense about Concord protecting the mission runners making it reasonable. Concord only protects (if you can call it that) mission runners from unsanctioned attacks.
If salvaging flagged for aggression it would be much more consistent with the rest of EVE's mechanics. Because at least then the mission runner could chose whether to assert their claim over the salvage by attacking the salvager (which would grant the salvager the right to self defense)
Oh and if you think it isn't simply a mechanic to facilitate "grief play" explain to me why you can't probe down wrecks?
That said I don't see the mechanic being changed so you're only real choice it to quit or deal with it.
|
Skex Relbore
Gallente
Red Federation
|
Posted - 2011.04.27 02:10:00 -
[2]
 Originally by: Tippia
more nonsense rationalization of stupid game design.
Until the mission runner/ratter kills the NPC there is no opportunity for there to even be salvage this is the difference between salvage and all the other crap you mentioned. Roids do not require player activity to come into existence, Hacking cans and Archeology cans exist independently of player actions as do ICE fields and moons.
Now while the actual result of the salvage attempt isn't determined by the server until the actual act of salvaging takes place that doesn't change the fact that the salvage comes from a wreck that was created by the actions of the person who destroyed the ship. Conceptually that salvage exists the minute the ship is reduced to wreckage. After all the salvager doesn't magic those items out of the ether (not conceptually at least) salvage is the result of stripping useful circuitry and other materials out of the wreck itself. Conceptually this is no different than stripping the intact artillery piece or shield extender. I mean you don't really think the idea is that the crew of the vessel gathers up all the functional modules and stick them in the cargo hold the instant prior to their ship being shot out from under them do you?
There is no difference outside this poorly thought out game mechanic between salvaging a intact module from a wreck or a damaged armored plate.
This is why the subject creates so many endless threadnaughts. No one argues about the ownership of the loot or the consequence of taking it because that makes sense at a basic level. Salvage on the other hand runs completely counter to what is logical and rational.
The developers insistence that this unintuitive nonsense was intended sounds more like lazy post facto rationalization from programers who couldn't figure out an easy way to make it consistent with the rest of the games mechanics.
There is a reason "It's not a bug, it's a feature" is a long standing joke.
That's all this whole argument boils down to. The devs couldn't admit that they made a mistake and didn't think through all the unintended effects of a design change and rather than spending the man hours to fix that mistake they simply claim that it's what they intended all along.
It's not a bug, It's a feature.
Yeah right like I've never heard that one before.
|
Skex Relbore
Gallente
Red Federation
|
Posted - 2011.04.27 03:12:00 -
[3]
Originally by: Tippia
Originally by: Skex Relbore
No one argues about the ownership of the loot or the consequence of taking it because that makes sense at a basic level.
Actually, there's nothing particularly logical about loot ownership either. Why should it be yours?
The reason it's yours is simply because it's part of the reward for killing the ship.
Quote:
Salvage on the other hand runs completely counter to what is logical and rational.
Salvage follows the exact same kind of logic: it's yours because it's the reward for salvaging the ship.
If you find it unintuitive that you get rewarded for what you do, then maybe the loot should be free for all as wellą
You continue to ignore the fact that salvage can only exist as a result of a player destroying a ship. Until that ship is reduced to wreckage through the actions of a player it can not be salvaged. You can't salvage an active ship. and there are no spontaneously spawned wrecks.
This is where your logic breaks down. If the loot is considered the property of the person who destroyed the rat by the authorities as a part of their compensation then there is no logical reason why the salvage shouldn't be considered part of that compensation as well.
There is no actual rational argument in favor of the existing game mechanic all you have is appeals to authority (the devs said it) and weak rationalizations based on that appeal.
|
|
|
| |
|