open All Channels
seplocked EVE General Discussion
blankseplocked No killrights when someone salvages my wreck = reward with no risk.
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8

Author Topic

Xaen
Caldari
Aperture Harmonics
K162
Posted - 2008.07.11 14:32:00 - [181]
 

Originally by: Tippia
Originally by: Xaen
Wow, they're fling 200M+ battleships into places where they might lose them to lag?
You don't lose things to lag – you lose them to enemies.
You've never ran a mission in Saila, have you? Get one nasty spawn when you're experiencing 40 second lag on module activation in an active tank and you could lose your ship.

Originally by: Tippia
If you lose a ship to the enemies you encounter in an L4 mission, you're doing something wrong.
Hi irrelevant ad hominem, I'm Xaen!

Originally by: Tippia
As for salvaging as you go, no, it's not completely unpractical unless you're low on skills or your fitting sucks. It's also a balance act: do you want to be fast, or do you want to be thorough?
Yes it is completely impractical with the exception of marauders. Lots of wrecks spawn more than 20km away. Mission battleships are too slow to be practical in chasing them down. Fitting an afterburner generally makes things more impractical. Not less. For example, the Dominix needs the mids for cap rechargers or drone mods. The Raven needs them for tanking....

Lies, with an ad hominem thrown in for flavor! Winning an argument requires arguing the points, not ad hominem attacks and making completely unfounded claims.

Xaen
Caldari
Aperture Harmonics
K162
Posted - 2008.07.11 14:33:00 - [182]
 

Originally by: Tippia
Originally by: Xaen
Wow, they're fling 200M+ battleships into places where they might lose them to lag?
You don't lose things to lag – you lose them to enemies. If you lose a ship to the enemies you encounter in an L4 mission, you're doing something wrong.

As for salvaging as you go, no, it's not completely unpractical unless you're low on skills or your fitting sucks. It's also a balance act: do you want to be fast, or do you want to be thorough?


Anyway, you should really read this statement:

Originally by: Caileb Memorax
I understand that those of you that ARE Ninja Salvagers want it to be a non-aggro-able offense but the argument that the wrecks don't belong to anyone is kind of shakey. Yes I know that CCP says that they aren't anyones property on the forums, but have you tired to activate a tractor beam on a wreck that wasn't "yours"? It gives you a very clear message that you can't because the wreck doesn't belong to you. The only reason that CCP set the rules the way they did is because they wanted to produce another profession for those that don't want to get involved in combat. But sometimes you have to fight for what you want. What is so terrible about getting flagged if you salvage someone elses wreck? Because you're in a crappy little ship that doesn't have the guns to stand up in a fight? Well then to use that same logic, why should a mission runner have to mount salvagers on their combat ship?

I agree that some mission runners don't want their wrecks, but some of us DO. And we've got the skills to actually KILL the ship that produced the wreck AND the skills to salvage them so don't we deserve SOME consideration on this issue? Put an counter on the wreck and if its not salvaged within a certain amount of time then it becomes open for claims. Or perhaps something on the character sheet that you can select that states that you intend to salvage any wreck that you produce and it is marked as belonging to you, look at a wreck sometime and you'll notice that it IS marked with the owner's corp abbreviation so this mechanism wouldn't be too much of a stretch to accomplish.

I think that this wouldn't be an issue if there were more "Exploration Sites" that people who WANT to scout for places to salvage were seeded into system. This would give them a place to go to use their skills. Maybe have an option where once a mission is turned in then the mission site BECOMES a Salvaging Exploration Site.

Anyways, salvaging isn't a complete profession on it's own. It's talked about as a "mini" profession. My impression of this is that it's something that you do along side a real profession like say... mission running or belt ratting.

I run level 4 missions, I'm a High Sec Mission Runner by profession and I can't tell you how upsetting it is when someone shows up in your mission and starts salvaging stuff out from under you while you're still fighting. The mission running isn't enough by itself to get ahead in this game, you NEED the salvage to build rigs or yourself or to sell so you can buy other stuff to build other ships.

I don't see why "I" as the mission runner shouldn't have SOME recourse where it come to legally protecting MY interests. It's not like I'm asking that Concord jumps in and kills a Ninja Looter. I'll do that myself. As to why we don't have a friend come behind us and salvage stuff for us, well, why don't you ninjas have a friend run a mission and you salvage for them? Hey, what's fair is fair right? Oh, that's right, you don't want to have to share.

Sorry about the rant here, I just feel very strongly about this. Because so many players out there are crappy people and use subterfuge to get fights instead of going down to Low Sec or 0.0 and getting into fight.

Tippia
Caldari
Sunshine and Lollipops
Posted - 2008.07.11 15:32:00 - [183]
 

Originally by: Xaen
You've never ran a mission in Saila, have you? Get one nasty spawn when you're experiencing 40 second lag on module activation in an active tank and you could lose your ship.
No. Why should I? It's a bad place to do missions in, so I don't. Just because you choose to make lag loss a possibility doesn't mean that the game mechanics need to be changed.
Quote:
Hi irrelevant ad hominem, I'm Xaen!
Not so much an ad hominem as a comment on game mechanics: the missions are designed to be beaten, and if you (as in the generic "you", not you personally) can't do it, you're not taking advantage of all the advantages the game offers you.
Quote:
Yes it is completely impractical with the exception of marauders. Lots of wrecks spawn more than 20km away. Mission battleships are too slow to be practical in chasing them down. Fitting an afterburner generally makes things more impractical. Not less. For example, the Dominix needs the mids for cap rechargers or drone mods. The Raven needs them for tanking....
Then maybe those ships aren't as cracked up for missioning as they're claimed to be? If I can tank them in a BC, why can't the Raven? If my BC can do them just fine without drone mods, why can't the Domi? If I don't need cap rechargers, why do you?
Quote:
Anyway, you should really read this statement:
I already have, and I've responded to it as well.

Taex
Posted - 2008.07.11 18:11:00 - [184]
 

Edited by: Taex on 11/07/2008 18:10:58
They haven't fixed this yet?

WTF

Xaen
Caldari
Aperture Harmonics
K162
Posted - 2008.07.11 18:12:00 - [185]
 

Originally by: Tippia
Originally by: Xaen
You've never ran a mission in Saila, have you? Get one nasty spawn when you're experiencing 40 second lag on module activation in an active tank and you could lose your ship.
No. Why should I? It's a bad place to do missions in, so I don't. Just because you choose to make lag loss a possibility doesn't mean that the game mechanics need to be changed.
That's just an example, you can get a connection drop in any system. The point it is, it proves that you're risking an expensive ship by running a level 4 mission. Arguing anything else is irrelevant.

Personally I don't run missions in the motsu area. Or even in Caldari space. But that isn't the point either, so I'll stop there.

Originally by: Tippia
Quote:
Hi irrelevant ad hominem, I'm Xaen!
Not so much an ad hominem as a comment on game mechanics: the missions are designed to be beaten, and if you (as in the generic "you", not you personally) can't do it, you're not taking advantage of all the advantages the game offers you.
You mean flying a raven? Try doing them in a dominix and surviving the drone aggro. You know, where you deploy your primary damage type and the entire room aggros on the drones. Then you pull them in and they turn on you? It's one of the reasons I quit using the dominix. Raven/Golem are easy mode. Once again, my point is: It's entirely possible to lose a ship through no fault of your own, so insulting people who do is simply an ad hominem and contributes nothing to the discussion.


Originally by: Tippia
Originally by: Xaen
Yes it is completely impractical with the exception of marauders. Lots of wrecks spawn more than 20km away. Mission battleships are too slow to be practical in chasing them down. Fitting an afterburner generally makes things more impractical. Not less. For example, the Dominix needs the mids for cap rechargers or drone mods. The Raven needs them for tanking....
Then maybe those ships aren't as cracked up for missioning as they're claimed to be?
I can certainly tank them in a bc too, but it results in slower mission completion times due to reduced DPS. So yes, not practical.

Originally by: Tippia
If I can tank them in a BC, why can't the Raven?
The raven can, your personal tanking ability isn't relevant to this discussion. If you run missions a battlecruiser, and looting and salvaging while doing it, by all means share your setup and tactics. Because having done it quite a bit, and discussed it with others who have done it even more, I've yet to find anything better (excluding marauders) than a raven and a separate salvaging ship. The raven is too slow to fly around to get in range of all the wrecks when the rats like to orbit at 50km, and the other ships are less efficient.

Originally by: Tippia
If my BC can do them just fine without drone mods, why can't the Domi?
*sigh*

Salvaging in the mission ship is far less efficient than using a dedicated salvage ship after the rats are all dead. Ergo, salvaging while running the missions is impractical.

Refute this point in particular, or conceded that it's correct. What you can do in a battlecruiser is in no way relevant.

Quelque Chose
New Eden Roller Disco Supply
Posted - 2008.07.11 18:27:00 - [186]
 

You guys are insane and going waaaaaaaaay off topic. You can sit around and argue over whose investment/ risk is bigger all you want but it doesn't really do much to further the argument over whether the mechanic ought be changed.

Can anybody other than the guy who's being quoted there explain to me why it is that L4 missioning income is so tenuous that it needs a protectionist change in game mechanics to keep it viable? Or why the current situation constitutes a damaging game imbalance on a larger scale than "he took my stuff! MINE!"?

Again, High Sec L4 missioning is generally acknowledged to be EZ Money(tm). Trading pays better but at least there you can shoot yourself in the foot to the tune of billions if you screw up. Why does L4 mission income need a (statistically probably pretty small) buff?

cal nereus
The Graduates
Morsus Mihi
Posted - 2008.07.11 18:34:00 - [187]
 

Edited by: cal nereus on 11/07/2008 18:35:39

The reason you can't tractor beam a wreck is because there's always a can inside, empty or not. And as much as CCP says no one owns property rights on wrecks, someone does own property rights on the can inside it. Someone can take the salvage, but they can't manipulate the can/loot without some sort of flagging penalty. Originally, not even cans caused flagging.

To be honest, the whole risk-reward thing (and also, effort-reward) isn't perfect in Eve, nor should it be. A smart player can, and will, minimize risk and maximize reward. If other players are taking more risk for less reward, that's more their own personal choice, not a result of faulty mechanics. Rarely is anything in life perfectly balanced regarding the amount of reward you get for the amount of risk you take.

If the isk I earned was tied to risk, I'd get rich off of PvP and mission running would be useless.

I've died in a few missions, and every time I did it was because I made the mistake of running missions during a high-lag period in Eve's 24 hour cycle of population-enduced lag in a specific system that is naturally high on lag. Yes, that's right, I admit that when I lose a ship to lag, it's my fault for being in the lag in the first place. If there's actual risk involved in running missions, it's the risk of making a stupid mistake. I make 'em every now and then, but that's about the only real risk at all.

I just don't like using the risk-reward model to explain how Eve should work. It isn't that simple and fair, nor should it be.

Edit: Especially, since, y'know, if risk-reward WAS balanced, mission running would earn almost nothing at all.

Xaen
Caldari
Aperture Harmonics
K162
Posted - 2008.07.11 18:44:00 - [188]
 

Originally by: Quelque Chose
You guys are insane and going waaaaaaaaay off topic. You can sit around and argue over whose investment/ risk is bigger all you want but it doesn't really do much to further the argument over whether the mechanic ought be changed.
It's not off topic really. Salvage thieves have attempted to marginalize the scope of the problem they cause by proposing unworkable solutions. I thought it necessary to shoot them down by proving them unworkable. And the fact that the rewards for salvage thievery are not jsutified by the minimal risks taken by the salvagers. You can do it in an hours old alt in a disposalbe ship. Mission running at the level where the thieves becomes interested requires months of training investment, man days of standings grind, and millions of ISK for the equipment.

It's fairly easy money once you're established, but requires significant investment. Salvage thieves are parasites feeding off the fruit of those investments with little to no investment and nearly no risk.

It should be changed because the risk vs. rewards are unfair to the mission runners, and additinally it's done as much for the joy of griefing more than it is for the profits. Four out of five game mechanics support that the wreck is owned by the mission runner. Only one supports the salvage theives' actions. A lot of players don't even realize that the salvage is currently FFA until someone steals it. This alone is justification for a change of some sort.

I have nothing against salvaging as long as it's done honestly and fairly. Unfortunately there are no good game mechanics to make it a real profession that doesn't absolutely infuriate a huge portion of the EVE player base. And if you don't think it's a huge portion, check the number of people in Motsu, Aramachi and the surrounding systems.

Originally by: Quelque Chose
Can anybody other than the guy who's being quoted there explain to me why it is that L4 missioning income is so tenuous that it needs a protectionist change in game mechanics to keep it viable?
Nice straw man argument with loaded words. So I'm not going to bother responding to it.

Originally by: Quelque Chose
Or why the current situation constitutes a damaging game imbalance on a larger scale than "he took my stuff! MINE!"?
Yet again, you phrase the question in such a way as to paint any answer in a negative light. So I'm not touching it.

Originally by: Quelque Chose
Again, High Sec L4 missioning is generally acknowledged to be EZ Money(tm).
Somewhat, it requires significant investment of time and ISK to get decent returns. Salvage thieves get disproportionate benefits for the investment required. You can probe out missions, then go salvage them within hours of creating a new thieving alt. Try running level 4 missions with an hours old character. Even if you could somehow come up with a ship that could handle it that quickly, you wouldn't have the standings with any corporation to talk to the level 4 agents.

Pretending level 4 missions are as easy as salvage thieving and so shouldn't deserve any rights is disingenuous at best.

Xaen
Caldari
Aperture Harmonics
K162
Posted - 2008.07.11 18:45:00 - [189]
 

Post constructively. ~Saint

Tippia
Caldari
Sunshine and Lollipops
Posted - 2008.07.11 18:48:00 - [190]
 

Edited by: Tippia on 11/07/2008 18:49:53
Originally by: Xaen
The point it is, it proves that you're risking an expensive ship by running a level 4 mission.
Everything is possible. You might be mistaken for a RMTer and put into negative a bazillion and/or banned and lose everything that way. Doesn't mean it's likely, and it isn't easily avoidable.

As for the cost, salvaging ships can cost a pretty penny as well, and can be lost to the exact same (unlikely) traps.
Quote:
You mean flying a raven?
No, I mean training your skills and fitting you ship in a way that makes it next to impossible to be killed.
Quote:
Try doing them in a dominix and surviving the drone aggro. You know, where you deploy your primary damage type and the entire room aggros on the drones. Then you pull them in and they turn on you?
I do mine in a Myrmidon. None of that is a problem.
Quote:
Once again, my point is: It's entirely possible to lose a ship through no fault of your own, so insulting people who do is simply an ad hominem and contributes nothing to the discussion.
And my point is that it is your fault for going out in an under-equipped ship, or without having trained the necessary skills.
Quote:
I can certainly tank them in a bc too, but it results in slower mission completion times due to reduced DPS. So yes, not practical.
Incorrect. It is still very much practical. What you're saying is that it's not as efficient, which is a completely different matter altogether.

However, it neatly ties in to my main point in this thread: risk vs. reward. By flying a heavier ship and salvaing afterwards (for whatever reason), you try to increase your rewards. Those increased rewards must come with an increased risk – losing wrecks to ninja salvagers is that (minute) risk.
Quote:
The raven can, your personal tanking ability isn't relevant to this discussion.
It's relevant because it shows that all this "oh, but I can't add equipment X because it ruins my tank" nonsense is… well, nonsense.
Quote:
Because having done it quite a bit, and discussed it with others who have done it even more, I've yet to find anything better (excluding marauders) than a raven and a separate salvaging ship. The raven is too slow to fly around to get in range of all the wrecks when the rats like to orbit at 50km, and the other ships are less efficient.
Risk vs. rewards. I (apparently) choose lower rewards, but gets lower risk. If you want higher rewards, you must accept the higher risks.
Quote:
Salvaging in the mission ship is far less efficient than using a dedicated salvage ship after the rats are all dead. Ergo, salvaging while running the missions is impractical.

Refute this point in particular, or conceded that it's correct. What you can do in a battlecruiser is in no way relevant.
I'm refuting that it's impractical – I'm not refuting that it's less efficient. You are confusing the two. The only point efficiency and practicality coincides is when your chosen setup simply cannot complete the mission: when efficiency is zero, so is practicality. Beyond that, you need to start discussing the whole matter in terms of risk vs. reward, and "practicality" is just a subjective view on that equation.

Quelque Chose
New Eden Roller Disco Supply
Posted - 2008.07.11 18:55:00 - [191]
 

Originally by: Xaen
Originally by: Quelque Chose
Can anybody other than the guy who's being quoted there explain to me why it is that L4 missioning income is so tenuous that it needs a protectionist change in game mechanics to keep it viable?
Nice straw man argument with loaded words. So I'm not going to bother responding to it.


No sir, it's the core of the argument and you won't respond to it because you are apparently an honest man. Cheers.

The simple fact of the matter is this: salvage "theft" reduces the global net income of mission runners by x% (and if I had to guess I'd say that x is probably a pretty small value). If salvage aggro mechanics are changed, that loss to shrinkage will be reduced somewhat to x-y%, thereby representing roughly a y% buff to overall missioning income.

It's well established that Eve isn't necessarily about fairness, so I don't know why we'd bother bringing it up. From a game balance perspective, the only real question is whether or not missioning needs the buff you and others are asking for... and that's a question you refuse to answer because it's pretty evident that it doesn't.

Minami Sayuri
Posted - 2008.07.11 19:38:00 - [192]
 

I personally believe that wrecks should have a timer before someone is allowed to salvage it without getting flagged. It's really just not fair to the person running a mission to have someone come in a start salvaging while you're still trying to clear a room. At very lease put a 1-hour timer on it and after that, let it be free domain.

Calacheng
Caldari
Posted - 2008.07.11 19:53:00 - [193]
 

Edited by: Calacheng on 11/07/2008 19:55:50
Originally by: Quelque Chose
The simple fact of the matter is this: salvage "theft" reduces the global net income of mission runners by x% (and if I had to guess I'd say that x is probably a pretty small value). If salvage aggro mechanics are changed, that loss to shrinkage will be reduced somewhat to x-y%, thereby representing roughly a y% buff to overall missioning income.

That means you assume that salvage stealing was included in the basic level of the missioning income and that is not true. Salvage stealing is a nerf to missioning income and removing the contradiction about the wreck ownership and returning it back by that x% would not be buff. It would just be a removing of the nerf and fixing the mistake they did.

It has been a mistake all along since four out of five game mechanics support that the wreck is owned by the mission runner. Only one supports the salvage thieves' actions. Salvage thieves exploit that contradiction as much as they can before it is fixed.



Tippia
Caldari
Sunshine and Lollipops
Posted - 2008.07.11 20:14:00 - [194]
 

Edited by: Tippia on 11/07/2008 20:14:44
Originally by: Calacheng
Salvage stealing is a nerf to missioning income and removing the contradiction about the wreck ownership and returning it back by that x% would not be buff. It would just be a removing of the nerf and fixing the mistake they did.
…it was a "nerf" that the mission runners asked for.

Also, it could just as well be argued that, since salvaging wan't included in missionin originally, its introduction was a buff, and that ninja salvaging simply brought things back to where they're supposed to be.

Both are silly arguments – QQC's point still stands: regardless of what the mission rewards were at some point in the past, assigning ownership to salvage is a buff to missionining as it exists today, and there is very little to suggest that such a buff is needed.

Xaen
Caldari
Aperture Harmonics
K162
Posted - 2008.07.11 20:36:00 - [195]
 

Originally by: Calacheng
Edited by: Calacheng on 11/07/2008 19:55:50
Originally by: Quelque Chose
The simple fact of the matter is this: salvage "theft" reduces the global net income of mission runners by x% (and if I had to guess I'd say that x is probably a pretty small value). If salvage aggro mechanics are changed, that loss to shrinkage will be reduced somewhat to x-y%, thereby representing roughly a y% buff to overall missioning income.

That means you assume that salvage stealing was included in the basic level of the missioning income and that is not true. Salvage stealing is a nerf to missioning income and removing the contradiction about the wreck ownership and returning it back by that x% would not be buff. It would just be a removing of the nerf and fixing the mistake they did.

It has been a mistake all along since four out of five game mechanics support that the wreck is owned by the mission runner. Only one supports the salvage thieves' actions. Salvage thieves exploit that contradiction as much as they can before it is fixed.



It's actually seven out of eight.
  1. The name of the player that killed the NPC is the one on the wreck.
  2. The picture of the player that killed the NPC is the one on the wreck.
  3. The sec status of the player that killed the NPC is the one on the wreck.
  4. The corp tag of the player that killed the NPC is the one on the wreck.
  5. Only the person that killed the NPC, their gang mates, or their player corpmates can destroy the wreck without concord intervention.
  6. Only the person that killed the NPC, their gang mates, or their player corpmates can tractor the wreck.
  7. If someone else tries to tractor the wreck they get a message that states that you cannot tractor it be cause "the wreck does not belong to you"

Xaen
Caldari
Aperture Harmonics
K162
Posted - 2008.07.11 20:38:00 - [196]
 

Edited by: Xaen on 11/07/2008 20:39:09
Originally by: Tippia
Edited by: Tippia on 11/07/2008 20:14:44
Originally by: Calacheng
Salvage stealing is a nerf to missioning income and removing the contradiction about the wreck ownership and returning it back by that x% would not be buff. It would just be a removing of the nerf and fixing the mistake they did.
…it was a "nerf" that the mission runners asked for.

Also, it could just as well be argued that, since salvaging wan't included in missionin originally, its introduction was a buff, and that ninja salvaging simply brought things back to where they're supposed to be.

Both are silly arguments – QQC's point still stands: regardless of what the mission rewards were at some point in the past, assigning ownership to salvage is a buff to missionining as it exists today, and there is very little to suggest that such a buff is needed.
You keep misspelling "change" as "buff" for some reason.

That's a weird neurosis.

Also, prove it was a change the mission runners asked for, or stop saying it.

Tippia
Caldari
Sunshine and Lollipops
Posted - 2008.07.11 20:45:00 - [197]
 

Edited by: Tippia on 11/07/2008 20:48:08
Originally by: Xaen
Also, prove it was a change the mission runners asked for, or stop saying it.
See earlier posts in the thread.
Quote:
It's actually seven out of eight.
…all of which would prove something if we could separate the cargo can from the ship. As it is, we can't, and the outdated UI doesn't really prove anything either way. You can come across a lot of things marked "cargo container" in the overview then, when you try to tractor them, yield the message "you can only tractor wrecks and cargo containers."

Also, for someone who's very touchy about supposed ad hominem attacks, you sure do call people liars and psychos a lot…

Xaen
Caldari
Aperture Harmonics
K162
Posted - 2008.07.11 21:03:00 - [198]
 

Originally by: Tippia
Edited by: Tippia on 11/07/2008 20:48:08
Originally by: Xaen
Also, prove it was a change the mission runners asked for, or stop saying it.
See earlier posts in the thread.
Quote:
It's actually seven out of eight.
…all of which would prove something if we could separate the cargo can from the ship. As it is, we can't, and the outdated UI doesn't really prove anything either way. You can come across a lot of things marked "cargo container" in the overview then, when you try to tractor them, yield the message "you can only tractor wrecks and cargo containers."

Also, for someone who's very touchy about supposed ad hominem attacks, you sure do call people liars and psychos a lot…
None of your pseudoarguments will stick to the point, but rather present straw man arguments, or pure ad hominem attacks. I got tired of trying to point them out.

And this post is a perfect example.

Liars are people who say things that are not true. You said something that was not true.

Having neuroses does not make you psychopath, thus I did not actually call anyone a psychopath, nor even attempt to imply it. You apparently don't even know what a psychopath is, based on your statements thus far. So you saying I'm calling people one makes you both a liar and someone terrible at formulating a cogent argument.

Tippia
Caldari
Sunshine and Lollipops
Posted - 2008.07.11 21:13:00 - [199]
 

Originally by: Xaen
Liars are people who say things that are not true. You said something that was not true.
Incorrect.

Calacheng
Caldari
Posted - 2008.07.11 21:28:00 - [200]
 

This post has been cleared of inappropriate content.

Regards,
The EVE Online Moderation team

Tippia
Caldari
Sunshine and Lollipops
Posted - 2008.07.11 21:29:00 - [201]
 

Originally by: Calacheng
No it is not. Liars really are people who say things that are not true.
You can't be so uneducated that you don't know that.
Maybe you should quote me correctly.

Calacheng
Caldari
Posted - 2008.07.11 22:12:00 - [202]
 

I quoted you correctly. I just left out a part of it like you have done just to show you your way of arguing.

Tippia
Caldari
Sunshine and Lollipops
Posted - 2008.07.11 22:14:00 - [203]
 

Originally by: Calacheng
I quoted you correctly. I just left out a part of it like you have done just to show you your way of arguing.
Incorrect on both accounts. Context is good for you.

Nathanial Victor
Minmatar
Posted - 2008.07.11 22:44:00 - [204]
 

jesus christ its like listening to 2 kids argue in the back seat!

you just want to turn around and smack em both regardless of who is right or wrong.

Dayanara Ryell
Suddenly Ninjas
Tear Extraction And Reclamation Service
Posted - 2008.07.11 23:52:00 - [205]
 

Originally by: Xaen
Also, prove it was a change the mission runners asked for, or stop saying it.


Actually Xaen is semi-correct here. The missioners didn't ask for any changes to be made to the salvaging mechanics. However, as I posted in a different post on this exact same topic:

Originally by: Dayanara Ryell
Salvage has never been considered the property of the person who blew up the rat. When it was first implemented you could salvage an empty wreck with no agro granted to the person who killed the rat. The agro was only granted when the salvager came across a wreck that had loot in it since, at that time, a wreck had to be empty before being salvaged. So to fix this minor problem, CCP changed it so that a wreck did not need to be empty to salvage it. That's it.


Day

Calacheng
Caldari
Posted - 2008.07.13 05:37:00 - [206]
 

By separating salvage from the loot flagging the salvage was thought to have no value when salvage often is more valuable than the loot. In faction kill missions like Enemies abound, the salvage has even more value since you don't get any bounties from the NPC ships. There is no way to defend against salvage thieves that are in NPC corp.

Lrd Byron
Posted - 2008.07.13 06:15:00 - [207]
 

First of all, there does not have to be risk in some activity for a reward to be appropriate. There is no risk in mining for example. There just needs to be work in exchange for a reward. The guy stealing your salvage did work, he spent time training the skills and taking the time to probe you out. Salvage is not like loot either. It requires skills and specific gear to obtain, and what the wreck salvages into, I believe at any rate, is random right up until a succesful salvage, so you can't claim its your salvage as there was nothing there until someone salvaged it.

Ragnar Darkstar
Posted - 2008.07.13 08:34:00 - [208]
 

I don't understand, from a RP reason why NPC salvage is treated differently from everything else. I mean, how is it different if I approach a shipwreck and remove a railgun as opposed to a tritium bar or some microcircuits? It is all just part of the wreck. CCP should make everything fair game or make everything flaggable.

Marlenus
Ironfleet Towing And Salvage
Posted - 2008.07.13 18:39:00 - [209]
 

I think enough time and pages have gone by that it's worth posting this again:

Per GM Faolchu :
Originally by: GM Faolchu
Salvaging other peoples wrecks.... This is an intended game mechanic and is in no way an exploit. People salvaging your missions npcs or the player you just blew up are doing nothing wrong. The players are salvaging what is effectively floating rubbish in space and Concord places no value on this wreckage.

Eve is a harsh place you won't always have everything go your way, its a do or die world and people do what they can to get along. If salvaging some wreckage gets them a few more ISK someone will do it, it doesn't matter who just blew it up.
(This quote is kept handy for your convenience at Ironfleet.com.)

People, you are wasting your breath.

Khlitouris RegusII
Posted - 2008.07.13 19:13:00 - [210]
 

Originally by: Nathanial Victor
Edited by: Nathanial Victor on 27/06/2008 21:11:03
?

Whats up with that? If they loot a can i can pwn them. If they salvage a wreck i can't.

Is there some programing reason this isn't the same and its really hard to fix? (i'd find that hard to believe).
Is it intentional?

If you think about it, ppl that nija salavge in high sec are getting reward with 0 risk... especially if they are a member of newb corp (as you cant declare war on them).

Anyone want to clear this up for me? Am i missing something?

----------

edit: thanks for the clarification. This thread is now about discussing the ridiculous policy that wreck and their salvage is public domain while the loot inside of them is not.

Very Happy


If theyre salvaging your wreck then not much you can do in a pod with killrights and they would prolly be gone by time you docked and got in a combat ship. if your talking about say wrecks left behind by ratting or missioning then they arent your wrecks they belong to the poor player/npc you killed and anyone can salvage them.


Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8

This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 


The new forums are live

Please adjust your bookmarks to https://forums.eveonline.com

These forums are archived and read-only