EVE Search - Problem: Salvage 'stealing'

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

Problem: Salvage 'stealing'

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 3 :: [one page]
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Lady Spank Amarr Trillionaire High-Rollers Suicidal Bassoon Orkesta	Posted - 2011.04.25 15:32:00 - [1] 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.
Neuge	Posted - 2011.04.25 15:36:00 - [2] Fireproof clothing
Komen Gallente The Night Crew	Posted - 2011.04.25 15:37:00 - [3] I support this message and or service. Sincerely, Yours Truly.
Ingvar Angst Amarr Omni Industrial Coalition Talocan United	Posted - 2011.04.25 15:48:00 - [4] 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.
Dorian Wylde	Posted - 2011.04.25 16:03:00 - [5] 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.
Mintala Arana Amarr	Posted - 2011.04.25 16:08:00 - [6] Originally by: Lady Spank Of course the real problem here is greedy nobheads wanting easy spacegold in high sec. sigh I guess folks missed this part?
Leetha Layne	Posted - 2011.04.25 17:13:00 - [7] You post this every week. Perhaps if you held your breath CCP would help out.
Yuki Kulotsuki	Posted - 2011.04.25 17:33:00 - [8] -- Did you know there's an alliance who's name you're not allowed to say, or website you're not allowed to link?
Mortania Minmatar No Compromise Gentlemen's Agreement	Posted - 2011.04.25 17:35:00 - [9] I'm not sure why we are having the same argument again. The system turned out better for cans, the same thing should be implemented for wrecks. More pew-pew. More traps. More fun!
HeIIfire11	Posted - 2011.04.25 17:44:00 - [10] -5/10
Guer	Posted - 2011.04.25 17:52:00 - [11] I came expecting a whine. I was presently surprised.
Hirana Yoshida Behavioral Affront	Posted - 2011.04.25 18:01:00 - [12] Salvage has no owner since it does exist until the act of salvaging is performed .. not sure CCP could code it even if they wanted to. Theft is part of Eve. Even when it is not technically theft. If you are concerned with salvagers then get out of the hubs or shoot your wrecks. PS: Make all wrecks in normal space probeable. Eve players are garbage and leave behind garbage .. time to introduce a garbage disposal professsion!
Mortania Minmatar No Compromise Gentlemen's Agreement	Posted - 2011.04.25 18:12:00 - [13] Originally by: Hirana Yoshida Salvage has no owner since it does exist until the act of salvaging is performed .. not sure CCP could code it even if they wanted to. Theft is part of Eve. Even when it is not technically theft. If you are concerned with salvagers then get out of the hubs or shoot your wrecks. PS: Make all wrecks in normal space probeable. Eve players are garbage and leave behind garbage .. time to introduce a garbage disposal professsion! The wrecks are easily marked with ownership. This is the same arguments made back in the can stealing days. The system was better once they introduced ownership. Everyone was happier afterwards. More pew-pew. More actual PvP. Less free rides.
Leeluvv The Black Ops	Posted - 2011.04.25 18:13:00 - [14] 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. And for those of us who haven't done a mission for 4 years, who owns the wrecks that aren't spawned by missions? Originally by: Doctor Mabuse A wife is just a T2 GF. They're more expensive and their resists are higher
Mortania Minmatar No Compromise Gentlemen's Agreement	Posted - 2011.04.25 18:18:00 - [15] Originally by: Leeluvv 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. And for those of us who haven't done a mission for 4 years, who owns the wrecks that aren't spawned by missions? What would be the kill mail owner if they were created for NPCs.
Reonetii Gallente	Posted - 2011.04.25 18:41:00 - [16] Feel free to have said ownership, I don't care I'm still going to take your stuff. In fact, when I ninja salvage I make sure I head straight for the juiciest or the mission item canfirst so that I am nice and blinky while I continue to head over and collect the remaining stuff. So whine away, ownership, no ownership of wreck, just so you can't cry about me stealing 'your' wreck salvage (when in fact it is the npc who really owns both the wreck and contents) I make sure I get myself set red immediately upon scanning you out. Take your best shot.
Lady Spank Amarr Trillionaire High-Rollers Suicidal Bassoon Orkesta	Posted - 2011.04.25 18:44:00 - [17] Originally by: Leeluvv 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. And for those of us who haven't done a mission for 4 years, who owns the wrecks that aren't spawned by missions? For all wrecks outside missions the mechanics remain the same since no one else is being a crybaby about naughty people chewing into their profits.
Lady Spank Amarr Trillionaire High-Rollers Suicidal Bassoon Orkesta	Posted - 2011.04.25 18:48:00 - [18] Originally by: Lady Spank Make wrecks and loot containers only accessible to the mission runner Originally by: Reonetii Feel free to have said ownership, I don't care I'm still going to take your stuff. You bin divers don't read so well do you. In fact, there's about 3 people on topic here, the rest are being dumb.
Reonetii Gallente	Posted - 2011.04.25 18:58:00 - [19] Originally by: Lady Spank Originally by: Lady Spank Make wrecks and loot containers only accessible to the mission runner Originally by: Reonetii Feel free to have said ownership, I don't care I'm still going to take your stuff. You bin divers don't read so well do you. In fact, there's about 3 people on topic here, the rest are being dumb. My bad, that's what 3am does to my reading skills, you win that one :)
Lady Spank Amarr Trillionaire High-Rollers Suicidal Bassoon Orkesta	Posted - 2011.04.25 19:06:00 - [20] Originally by: Reonetii My bad, that's what 3am does to my reading skills, you win that one :) It's all good brosef
Ozmodan Minmatar Massively Mob	Posted - 2011.04.25 19:21:00 - [21] I think you are approaching this subject in the wrong manner. You are pointing fingers at issues which you think are caused by others, when in fact the issues are caused by yourself. If you are having issues with an agent in an area, move to another agent. Missioning out of popular hubs is basically asking for problems. As to your solution, it would basically raise a real howl of protest from many current mission runners. If you ask me that is pretty selfish of you. Fix your problem and cause a multitude of problems for everyone else. When proposing changes to the game it is essential to think how this affects other people other than you, otherwise you just end up with an exercise in selfishness. I see far too much of this on this board, we don't need more. Learners permit still current
Mr Kidd	Posted - 2011.04.25 19:49:00 - [22] Edited by: Mr Kidd on 25/04/2011 19:53:58 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. Ah, but if it were not for the loot, salvage, bounties and rewards then many a missioner would just stop. They're considering the entirety of the mission as their income potential. This is the key point of contest between the missioner and the ninja. The missioner believes it's all theirs. The ninja teaches them it is not. On the whole, the interaction between ninja and missioner produces some much need dynamics in missions which lack variety and challenge after a certain skill point in a player's eve-life. What you are suggesting is only further encapsulating the professional missioner. There is no solution because there is no problem as it is perceived by the missioner. As such the only change available is to diminish either the missioner or the ninja. Making loot/salvage inaccessible to the ninja condemns the professional to extinction. Although their are wrecks from other events, finding them and accessing them does not even begin to approach reliable. However, I would be for such a change if the missioner were required to probe out mission agents not knowing in which system and where they may reside from hour to hour nor knowing if someone had gotten their first and already activated the agent causing him/her to move location and rendering the mission inaccessible to the belated mission runner. Missioners would spend hours looking for a mission to run. I could bathe in the amount of tears that would cause.....which is more or less what you are suggesting for ninjas.
Marquis Zenas I.X Research	Posted - 2011.04.25 19:56:00 - [23] 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. For those of poor reading/low sarcasm skills, I bolded the important parts. After this hits two pages, prepare for another threadnaught. -------------------------- How do you play the game? Originally by: Le Skunk Spin an armarda of expensive ships, grandstand in local chat and post on forums
Reonetii Gallente	Posted - 2011.04.25 20:02:00 - [24] Originally by: Mr Kidd Edited by: Mr Kidd on 25/04/2011 19:53:58 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. Ah, but if it were not for the loot, salvage, bounties and rewards then many a missioner would just stop. They're considering the entirety of the mission as their income potential. This is the key point of contest between the missioner and the ninja. The missioner believes it's all theirs. The ninja teaches them it is not. On the whole, the interaction between ninja and missioner produces some much need dynamics in missions which lack variety and challenge after a certain skill point in a player's eve-life. What you are suggesting is only further encapsulating the professional missioner. There is no solution because there is no problem as it is perceived by the missioner. As such the only change available is to diminish either the missioner or the ninja. Making loot/salvage inaccessible to the ninja condemns the professional to extinction. Although their are wrecks from other events, finding them and accessing them does not even begin to approach reliable. However, I would be for such a change if the missioner were required to probe out mission agents not knowing in which system and where they may reside from hour to hour nor knowing if someone had gotten their first and already activated the agent causing him/her to move location and rendering the mission inaccessible to the belated mission runner. Missioners would spend hours looking for a mission to run. I could bathe in the amount of tears that would cause.....which is more or less what you are suggesting for ninjas. There is to this too, the opinion of the said mission runner, that the mission space generated, is Exclusive space, a room, no one should be able to get in - which in itself explains the education level of some mission runners. They forget, there are no high fences in space that the neighbors can't see or climb over
Uncle Alf	Posted - 2011.04.25 20:05:00 - [25] Im not quite sure what you mean, Lady ****, its this a joke or what ?
Mr Kidd	Posted - 2011.04.25 20:06:00 - [26] Originally by: Reonetii There is to this too, the opinion of the said mission runner, that the mission space generated, is Exclusive space, a room, no one should be able to get in - which in itself explains the education level of some mission runners. They forget, there are no high fences in space that the neighbors can't see or climb over I wasn't suggesting that the space be inaccessible. Only access to acquire the mission from the agent.
Reonetii Gallente	Posted - 2011.04.25 20:08:00 - [27] Originally by: Mr Kidd Originally by: Reonetii There is to this too, the opinion of the said mission runner, that the mission space generated, is Exclusive space, a room, no one should be able to get in - which in itself explains the education level of some mission runners. They forget, there are no high fences in space that the neighbors can't see or climb over I wasn't suggesting that the space be inaccessible. Only access to acquire the mission from the agent. Actually I should have posted this as a comment, not a quote, I liked your idea of hunting for the mission agent.
Anddeh McNab Cadre Assault Force	Posted - 2011.04.25 20:17:00 - [28] 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. There are two sides to the EVE community; those that scream for change and those that scream against it. Often they are the same person.
Guillame Herschel Gallente NME1	Posted - 2011.04.25 20:27:00 - [29] Originally by: Dorian Wylde 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. You mean the way your house is located within America, but you don't own America?
Mortania Minmatar No Compromise Gentlemen's Agreement	Posted - 2011.04.25 20:28:00 - [30] Originally by: Guillame Herschel Originally by: Dorian Wylde 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. You mean the way your house is located within America, but you don't own America? Yes, America the container.
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.
Lady Spank Amarr Trillionaire High-Rollers Suicidal Bassoon Orkesta	Posted - 2011.05.01 19:52:00 - [61] Originally by: HeIIfire11 Originally by: Lady Skank Herp derp Owned! I like this name much better to be honest with you. Are you under the impression this is one of my alts?
HeIIfire11	Posted - 2011.05.01 20:09:00 - [62] Originally by: Lady Spank Originally by: HeIIfire11 Originally by: Lady Skank Herp derp Owned! I like this name much better to be honest with you. Are you under the impression this is one of my alts? Yeah I saw "Ban Evasion inc" and figured...well yeah
Tosser Galore	Posted - 2011.05.01 21:06:00 - [63] 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. --- "Your salvager I can not activate on gigamar Large Wreck because it's not yours to take" ROfL Please re-size your signature to the maximum allowed of 400 x 120 pixels with a maximum file size of 24000 bytes. Zymurgist

Pages: 1 2 3 :: [one page]

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.