Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Guillame Herschel
Gallente NME1
|
Posted - 2011.04.25 20:29:00 -
[31]
Originally by: Mortania The system was better once they introduced ownership. Everyone was happier afterwards. More pew-pew. More actual PvP. Less free rides.
Salvage has ownership. The guy who has it in his cargo owns it. To take it from him, shoot his ship down. More pew pew, More actual PvP. Less free rides.
|
Mortania
Minmatar No Compromise Gentlemen's Agreement
|
Posted - 2011.04.25 20:31:00 -
[32]
Originally by: Guillame Herschel
Originally by: Mortania The system was better once they introduced ownership. Everyone was happier afterwards. More pew-pew. More actual PvP. Less free rides.
Salvage has ownership. The guy who has it in his cargo owns it. To take it from him, shoot his ship down. More pew pew, More actual PvP. Less free rides.
Same argument was given 6(?) years ago for jetcan theft. It was moronic back then too. Can theft is much better now. It's so damned close I think it would take a moron to not see the similarities and how the change made everything better for everyone.
|
Guillame Herschel
Gallente NME1
|
Posted - 2011.04.25 20:42:00 -
[33]
Originally by: Mortania Same argument was given 6(?) years ago for jetcan theft.
Who gives a crap? That was six years ago. The game has changed a huge amount since then. Speak to the present. Why should salvage be changed so that it is just another loot item? Why can't there be a variety of drops from mission rats with a variety of uses?
|
Cambarus
The Baros Syndicate
|
Posted - 2011.04.25 20:44:00 -
[34]
Originally by: Mortania
Originally by: Guillame Herschel
Originally by: Mortania The system was better once they introduced ownership. Everyone was happier afterwards. More pew-pew. More actual PvP. Less free rides.
Salvage has ownership. The guy who has it in his cargo owns it. To take it from him, shoot his ship down. More pew pew, More actual PvP. Less free rides.
Same argument was given 6(?) years ago for jetcan theft. It was moronic back then too. Can theft is much better now. It's so damned close I think it would take a moron to not see the similarities and how the change made everything better for everyone.
I keep saying this and people keep ignoring it as an issue; it drives me nuts.
The most common argument (aside from CCP saying that it's an intended feature which isn't really an argument at all) is that there needs to be risk for highsec mission runners, and that ninja salvaging represents one such risk. The problem with this argument is that it does not mention what the supposed risk of ninja salvaging is. You're in a 200k frigate, even if you die you won't really be losing anything worth noting, so claiming that it's a risk vs reward thing is absurd.
As for why it SHOULD be changed, it encourages people to shoot each other. This is eve. Since when do we even need more reason than that? It doesn't FORCE people to shoot each other, so the carebears have nothing to whine about, and the ninja salvagers could use some risk in what they do anyway. |
Mortania
Minmatar No Compromise Gentlemen's Agreement
|
Posted - 2011.04.25 20:45:00 -
[35]
Originally by: Guillame Herschel
Originally by: Mortania Same argument was given 6(?) years ago for jetcan theft.
Who gives a crap? That was six years ago. The game has changed a huge amount since then. Speak to the present. Why should salvage be changed so that it is just another loot item? Why can't there be a variety of drops from mission rats with a variety of uses?
People who like to do things logically? Which is most game designers, at least the ones I know.
Don't know the past, doomed to repeat it and all that.
We've solved this problem before, to the betterment and enjoyment of all parties. Why refuse to do it again?
|
Julienne Poirier
Gallente Nonya Endeavours
|
Posted - 2011.04.25 20:48:00 -
[36]
after reading the first line i doubble checked that the op was in fact lady spank.
then i read the second line. lol
|
Slade Trillgon
Endless Possibilities Inc.
|
Posted - 2011.04.25 20:57:00 -
[37]
Originally by: Lady Spank Solution:
Make wrecks and loot containers only accessible to the mission runner contracted by the agent to undertake said mission.
A ninja salvagers in this discussion have missed a very important two word section from Lady Spank's post Now if those cans are still destructable, this ould create a very large outcry from teh mission runner population
Originally by: Anddeh McNab The only "problem" is that players (be them new or old) are not made aware of just what does or does not belong to them.
As this may be true , I have a feeling not telling new players they do not have a right to the loot that is created after they make a NPC go boom, is probably a strategic move on the part of CCP.
Slade :Signature Temporarily Disabled: |
Prok MeAmadeus
|
Posted - 2011.04.25 20:58:00 -
[38]
Originally by: Dorian Wylde
Originally by: Ingvar Angst So... someone that hasn't trained salvaging up for whatever reason now can no longer turn in missions? Someone that has someone else come along and shoot the wrecks for gits and shiggles now can't turn in the mission.
The system isn't broken. When you kill a ship, you are given rights to the ships cargo. The newly created wreck, however, is simply that, a wreck. There is no salvage until someone salvages it, then whomever does the salvaging owns the salvage simply due to the fact that it's now in their cargo hold. It's really that simple.
A wreck is not salvage until it's salvaged.
While I don't really care about the issue one way or another, I am compelled to point out the break in logic between the person owning the contents of the container, but not the container itself.
Since this difference is recognised in RL law, why not internet spaceships law?
|
Prok MeAmadeus
|
Posted - 2011.04.25 21:41:00 -
[39]
Originally by: Slade Trillgon
Originally by: Lady Spank Solution:
Make wrecks and loot containers only accessible to the mission runner contracted by the agent to undertake said mission.
A ninja salvagers in this discussion have missed a very important two word section from Lady Spank's post Now if those cans are still destructable, this ould create a very large outcry from teh mission runner population
OH GOD MY NOCTIS ALT!
|
HeIIfire11
|
Posted - 2011.04.25 22:01:00 -
[40]
Originally by: Lady Spank In fact, there's about 3 people on topic here, the rest are being dumb.
The whole topic is "dumb". More so when there is another one exactly like it on the same page. But I guess since reading is so hard this one is for the..lets say simple people?
|
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
|
Posted - 2011.04.25 22:05:00 -
[41]
Edited by: Tippia on 25/04/2011 22:06:12
Originally by: Cambarus The most common argument (aside from CCP saying that it's an intended feature which isn't really an argument at all) is that there needs to be risk for highsec mission runners, and that ninja salvaging represents one such risk.
Is it? I can't say that I've heard that argument very often. What I do hear is that there needs to be competition and interaction for the mission runners so they don't live in their own special bubbles. Competing for salvage fixes that quite nicely.
Quote: The problem with this argument is that it does not mention what the supposed risk of ninja salvaging is.
It's the same risk as for the mission-runner: you risk not getting the stuff you've worked for.
Oh, and just to be on-topic: No, Lady Spank, I don't think your idea is a good one. Us poor mission-runners have been nerfed enough as it is. ùùù ôIf you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡à you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.ö ù Karath Piki |
Prok MeAmadeus
|
Posted - 2011.04.25 22:14:00 -
[42]
Originally by: HeIIfire11
Originally by: Lady Spank In fact, there's about 3 people on topic here, the rest are being dumb.
The whole topic is "dumb". More so when there is another one exactly like it on the same page. But I guess since reading is so hard this one is for the..lets say simple people?
Still only 3.
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
|
Posted - 2011.04.25 22:15:00 -
[43]
Originally by: Prok MeAmadeus Still only 3.
Oh come on! My addendum doesn't even count as a 0.1? Unfair! ùùù ôIf you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡à you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.ö ù Karath Piki |
HeIIfire11
|
Posted - 2011.04.25 22:29:00 -
[44]
Originally by: Tippia Edited by: Tippia on 25/04/2011 22:06:12
Originally by: Cambarus The most common argument (aside from CCP saying that it's an intended feature which isn't really an argument at all) is that there needs to be risk for highsec mission runners, and that ninja salvaging represents one such risk.
Is it? I can't say that I've heard that argument very often. What I do hear is that there needs to be competition and interaction for the mission runners so they don't live in their own special bubbles. Competing for salvage fixes that quite nicely.
Quote: The problem with this argument is that it does not mention what the supposed risk of ninja salvaging is.
It's the same risk as for the mission-runner: you risk not getting the stuff you've worked for.
Oh, and just to be on-topic: No, Lady Spank, I don't think your idea is a good one. Us poor mission-runners have been nerfed enough as it is.
Reported this post. It contains too much text. This is the easy version of our discussion where you use very simple and short remarks like ":excellence:",fasinating,interesting or shut up. Lets keep it simple for the op okay?
|
Cambarus
The Baros Syndicate
|
Posted - 2011.04.25 22:33:00 -
[45]
Originally by: Tippia
Is it? I can't say that I've heard that argument very often. What I do hear is that there needs to be competition and interaction for the mission runners so they don't live in their own special bubbles. Competing for salvage fixes that quite nicely.
Competition is a risk, the 2 go hand in hand. Not only this, but aggression would not change/remove this competition, so this isn't really an argument against making ninja salvaging give a timer.
Originally by: Tippia It's the same risk as for the mission-runner: you risk not getting the stuff you've worked for.
Not really. There is always the risk (however small) that the mission runner loses their ship. A sudden DC, a suicide ganker, a corp spy, or just plain not paying attention. All manageable risks mind you, and mostly avoidable, but they're still risks.(and a mission running ship going boom costs a lot more than a frigate with t1 mods) While I would be the first to agree that missions could use more risk in them, that doesn't change the fact that ninja salvaging could use some added risk even MORE. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
|
Posted - 2011.04.25 22:34:00 -
[46]
Originally by: HeIIfire11 Lets keep it simple for the op okay?
That was the TL;DR at the endà ùùù ôIf you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡à you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.ö ù Karath Piki |
Cambarus
The Baros Syndicate
|
Posted - 2011.04.25 22:57:00 -
[47]
Originally by: Tippia Sure. But none of those risks have anything to do with salvaging.
And? The idea that mission running has risks separate to salvaging still means mission running has risks. Technically, so does ninja-salvaging, but the most you risk there is a t1 frigate vs a billion isk missionning ship. The whole reason I support making salvaging give aggro is that there really isn't any risk for the salvager as it is (and let's not forget that more pewpew is almost never a bad thing)
Originally by: Tippia Why is that? It's a rather low-reward activity, so it seems rather balanced in that regard. If you want to include the non-profession-specific risks (e.g. the DC, gankers, spies etc mentioned above) then sure, it's a benefit that the salvaging profession can be done in very cheap, insurable T1 ships, but is that really a problem? So can mining and hauling and lower-level missions ù things with similar rewards and similar exposure.
Show me the isk you can make in a t1 frigate mining or running missions. |
Jennifer Starling
Imperial Navy Forum Patrol
|
Posted - 2011.04.25 23:02:00 -
[48]
Originally by: Uncle Alf Im not quite sure what you mean, Lady ****, its this a joke or what ?
Seriously, you have any doubts? ^^
|
Mortania
Minmatar No Compromise Gentlemen's Agreement
|
Posted - 2011.04.25 23:11:00 -
[49]
Originally by: HeIIfire11 Edited by: HeIIfire11 on 25/04/2011 22:42:15
Originally by: Tippia Edited by: Tippia on 25/04/2011 22:06:12
Originally by: Cambarus The most common argument (aside from CCP saying that it's an intended feature which isn't really an argument at all) is that there needs to be risk for highsec mission runners, and that ninja salvaging represents one such risk.
Is it? I can't say that I've heard that argument very often. What I do hear is that there needs to be competition and interaction for the mission runners so they don't live in their own special bubbles. Competing for salvage fixes that quite nicely.
Quote: The problem with this argument is that it does not mention what the supposed risk of ninja salvaging is.
It's the same risk as for the mission-runner: you risk not getting the stuff you've worked for.
Oh, and just to be on-topic: No, Lady Spank, I don't think your idea is a good one. Us poor mission-runners have been nerfed enough as it is.
Reported this post. It contains too much text. This is the easy version of our discussion where you use very simple and short remarks like :excellence:,fascinating,interesting or shut up. Lets keep it simple for the op okay?
My bad! Thanks for the clarity.
I'd like to change all my previous responses to:
u mad?
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
|
Posted - 2011.04.25 23:21:00 -
[50]
Edited by: Tippia on 25/04/2011 23:22:17
Originally by: Cambarus And? The idea that mission running has risks separate to salvaging still means mission running has risks. Technically, so does ninja-salvaging, but the most you risk there is a t1 frigate vs a billion isk missionning ship.
Andà mission running has a whole bunch of rewards attached to it to offset those risks. Salvaging (ninja or otherwise) has one reward, and it's something you have to compete for ù the competition is the risk.
There is no "T1 frigate vs billion ISK ship" disparity in risk ù it's a "æDo I get the salvage?Æ vs. æDo I get the salvage?Æ" risk, and it's the same for both parties. Neither of them is risking anything more than not getting the stuff so the prices is of the ships are rather inconsequential.
The risk of mission runners in missions isn't really a part of the equation because that's a separate activity. If you want to bring that in, then we can start discussing whether missions pay too much for the minuscule risks they present (especially to billion-iSK shipsà), but that's really a separate discussion.
Quote: The whole reason I support making salvaging give aggro is that there really isn't any risk for the salvager as it is
And the reason I don't support it is because it increases the rewards for missions, because there are already risks for the salvagers, and because in the end, it's all comes across as an attempt to reduce the risks (even in face of that increased reward) for mission-runnersà not that it will work, but still.
Quote: Show me the isk you can make in a t1 frigate mining or running missions.
Perhaps not in a T1 frigate, but certainly in T1 haulers, T1 cruisers and T1 BCs, all of which cost very little to lose (and all of which you won't lose anyway since the risks are so small).
The point is, salvaging is inherently risky, but of a different kind ù more akin to trading ù and is still newbie friendly. Why does it need more? ùùù ôIf you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡à you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.ö ù Karath Piki |
|
Lady Spank
Amarr Trillionaire High-Rollers Suicidal Bassoon Orkesta
|
Posted - 2011.04.27 13:39:00 -
[51]
Originally by: Prok MeAmadeus
Originally by: HeIIfire11
Originally by: Lady Spank In fact, there's about 3 people on topic here, the rest are being dumb.
The whole topic is "dumb". More so when there is another one exactly like it on the same page. But I guess since reading is so hard this one is for the..lets say simple people?
Still only 3.
It's funny failfire1111 complains about reading failure when failing to read.
|
HeIIfire11
|
Posted - 2011.04.27 13:49:00 -
[52]
Originally by: Lady Spank
Originally by: Prok MeAmadeus
Originally by: HeIIfire11
Originally by: Lady Spank In fact, there's about 3 people on topic here, the rest are being dumb.
The whole topic is "dumb". More so when there is another one exactly like it on the same page. But I guess since reading is so hard this one is for the..lets say simple people?
Still only 3.
It's funny failfire1111 complains about reading failure when failing to read.
You lost me..what did I miss?
|
Kuronaga
Kantian Principle
|
Posted - 2011.04.27 13:50:00 -
[53]
So if I kill you IRL, I should legally gain custody of your house and everything in it, right?
|
HeIIfire11
|
Posted - 2011.04.27 13:54:00 -
[54]
Originally by: Kuronaga So if I kill you IRL, I should legally gain custody of your house and everything in it, right?
If you're smart enough to make me sign it over to you before you pull the trigger I guess you could yes.
|
RedSplat
|
Posted - 2011.05.01 15:40:00 -
[55]
Originally by: Lady Spank Solution:
Make wrecks and loot containers only accessible to the mission runner contracted by the agent to undertake said mission.
Force the mission runner to turn in all salvage and loot to the agent before the mission can be completed.
Agent keeps the loot.
---
Of course the real problem here is greedy nobheads wanting easy spacegold in high sec.
More effort needed my dear wwwcom
|
Corina's Bodyguard
|
Posted - 2011.05.01 15:43:00 -
[56]
Originally by: HeIIfire11
Originally by: Kuronaga So if I kill you IRL, I should legally gain custody of your house and everything in it, right?
If you're smart enough to make me sign it over to you before you pull the trigger I guess you could yes.
Not even. Can't profit from a crime and all that. Just like insurance companies cannot payout if you kill the person insured.
Then again, RL + EVE don't usually compare well.
|
Elaine Solarheart
|
Posted - 2011.05.01 16:39:00 -
[57]
8/10. Nice troll. Good to see you get out of the C&P cesspool once in awhile. Now get back under your bridge. Would have given you 9/10, but the crowd was way too easy for you over here in GD; stop punching below your weight I've seen things you people wouldn't believe..... Attack ships on fire, off the shoulder of Orion. I watched c-beams glitter in the dark, near the Tanhauser gate. All those moments will be lost i |
Lady Skank
Ban Evasion inc
|
Posted - 2011.05.01 16:49:00 -
[58]
Originally by: Cambarus
Originally by: Mortania
Originally by: Guillame Herschel
Originally by: Mortania The system was better once they introduced ownership. Everyone was happier afterwards. More pew-pew. More actual PvP. Less free rides.
Salvage has ownership. The guy who has it in his cargo owns it. To take it from him, shoot his ship down. More pew pew, More actual PvP. Less free rides.
Same argument was given 6(?) years ago for jetcan theft. It was moronic back then too. Can theft is much better now. It's so damned close I think it would take a moron to not see the similarities and how the change made everything better for everyone.
I keep saying this and people keep ignoring it as an issue; it drives me nuts.
The most common argument (aside from CCP saying that it's an intended feature which isn't really an argument at all) is that there needs to be risk for highsec mission runners, and that ninja salvaging represents one such risk. The problem with this argument is that it does not mention what the supposed risk of ninja salvaging is. You're in a 200k frigate, even if you die you won't really be losing anything worth noting, so claiming that it's a risk vs reward thing is absurd.
As for why it SHOULD be changed, it encourages people to shoot each other. This is eve. Since when do we even need more reason than that? It doesn't FORCE people to shoot each other, so the carebears have nothing to whine about, and the ninja salvagers could use some risk in what they do anyway.
The reason CCP stick to the "intended mechanic" line is precisely because of the way jet can flipping panned out not because they actually really believe salvage should be free for all to come and take, miners and others cried great rivers of QQ asking for contents of cans to be flagged as owned so they could shoot people that took from "their" cans and for the majority of high sec bears it backfired as they have to been stupid to stop themselves getting killed when they dispute ownership of items in a can when they really shouldn't ever since.
If salvage gets the same treatment the same thing will happen and CCP don't want this as they have steadily made high sec more bear friendly and don't want to introduce any more potential ways for bears to die.
CCP don't believe salvage should be FFA at all.
|
HeIIfire11
|
Posted - 2011.05.01 16:57:00 -
[59]
Originally by: Lady Skank Herp derp
Owned!
I like this name much better to be honest with you.
|
Long John Silver
|
Posted - 2011.05.01 17:13:00 -
[60]
Solution: If we had more AFK cloakers, the ninja salvagers would all stay in their stations and the problem would go away.
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |