open All Channels
seplocked Assembly Hall
blankseplocked A thought on salvaging
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Author Topic

Sanctuary Champion
Posted - 2010.12.22 10:09:00 - [1]
 

wanted to make a suggestion about Salvageable wrecks, i know if u flip a can of another players you become hostel to that player. so why is it we can do that but salvaging wrecks is left as a non hostel act? lots of industry builders rely on there salvage to make there money but when u get a griefer come in a start salvaging your hard earned wrecks they cant shoot them? so i propose that salvaging wrecks should be deemed a hostel act in game. this way if a player doesn't want there wrecks they can right click and abandon them, and the indy people and make there isk with out worry of loosing there materials.

fly safe friends Cool

Aineko Macx
Posted - 2010.12.22 10:20:00 - [2]
 

In before ninja salvager whine and in before grammar ****s.

If you had searched before, you'd have seen this has been brought up a million times.

Sessym
Amarr
Posted - 2010.12.22 11:24:00 - [3]
 

You can utilize a lot of tools to 'save' the wrecks from being ninja salvaged. Like marauders or the Noctis. All it takes is some thinking. A lot of people whine about ninja salvagers, which is a valid profession, like market/contract scammers, corp thieves or suicide gankers. These are fully intended and deemed valid by CCP.

TL;DR: HTFU

Black Dranzer
Caldari
Posted - 2010.12.22 11:31:00 - [4]
 

I've seen the arguments against wreck flagging, and none of them are viable.

"It's just garbage" is a load of crap; It's often worth more than the drops and bounty combined.

"It's not meant to belong to the mission runner" is pretty weak when you consider that the Noctis is based entirely around the principle that wrecks are owned (which is why you get tractor beam bonuses instead of salvager range bonuses).

"It requires specialized equipment"? I'm sorry, but a few hours of skill training for a 20k module is not "specialized equipment".

"It would destroy salvaging" is a viable complaint with its own solutions, such as letting abandoned mission sites be probable (with regular probes, even).

"HTFU mission runner" isn't an argument, and it's also hypocritical given that a ninja salvager does about 2% of the work that a mission runner does and yet claims 50% of the rewards (which the aforementioned mission runner worked to produce.) If anybody needs to harden the **** up, it's the salvagers.

"It wouldn't stop the ninjas" is partially true and also irrelevant.

Supported, but you won't get many other people supporting it. You're even less likely to get people telling you why they don't support it. You're even less likely to get people responding to the counterarguments I just listed.

Remember kids, Eve is a world of harsh consequences.

Unless you want to salvage the wrecks of others, in which case concord will protect you.

And people call me a carebear.

Jai Di
Caldari
Posted - 2010.12.22 12:22:00 - [5]
 

Edited by: Jai Di on 22/12/2010 12:27:05
Edited by: Jai Di on 22/12/2010 12:23:04
Edited by: Jai Di on 22/12/2010 12:22:29
Originally by: Black Dranzer
"It's just garbage" is a load of crap; It's often worth more than the drops and bounty combined.


Not really true, I often salvage an entire L4 mission getting only a few hundred thousand ISK's worth of items. AFAIK it's based largely on luck / chance.

Originally by: Black Dranzer
"It's not meant to belong to the mission runner" is pretty weak when you consider that the Noctis is based entirely around the principle that wrecks are owned (which is why you get tractor beam bonuses instead of salvager range bonuses).


No the Noctis is based on the hope that mission runners abandon wrecks (which, even if they don't salvage, rarely happens). It's not designed for mission runners, but normal salvagers. (it's hard to ninja in a battle cruiser).

Originally by: Black Dranzer
"It requires specialized equipment"? I'm sorry, but a few hours of skill training for a 20k module is not "specialized equipment".


While I don't know a huge amount about the differences between what can and can't be salvaged with T1 salvagers compared to T2, but this is based entirely on what site / missions are being done.

Originally by: Black Dranzer
"It would destroy salvaging" is a viable complaint with its own solutions, such as letting abandoned mission sites be probable (with regular probes, even).


I agree about abandoned sites should come up with at least combat probes. But not if ninja salvaging is outlawed.

Originally by: Black Dranzer
"HTFU mission runner" isn't an argument, and it's also hypocritical given that a ninja salvager does about 2% of the work that a mission runner does and yet claims 50% of the rewards (which the aforementioned mission runner worked to produce.) If anybody needs to harden the **** up, it's the salvagers.


Probing and having the patience to ninja is quite a lot of work. Considering most people who ***** about this are sitting in a CNR running level 4's semi-afk, I don't see your argument that the missioner is "doing all the hard work". Clicking a few buttons and eating a cheese sandwich is not work. (if you think running level 4's is hard then you're doing it wrong).

Originally by: Black Dranzer
"It wouldn't stop the ninjas" is partially true and also irrelevant.


No it wouldn't. It would just mean more missioners rage attack the ninja's, who promptly exit to get int their PVP set up ship and blow the missioner up without concord doing anything.

Originally by: Black Dranzer
Supported, but you won't get many other people supporting it. You're even less likely to get people telling you why they don't support it. You're even less likely to get people responding to the counterarguments I just listed.


Happy birthday.

Originally by: Black Dranzer
Remember kids, Eve is a world of harsh consequences.

Unless you want to salvage the wrecks of others, in which case concord will protect you.


Next time, bring an alt.

Originally by: Black Dranzer
And people call me a carebear.


You're a carebear.

Edit: Why I'm not supporting this thread.

Also, just to say that I've been on both sides of the coin and I still don't agree. Salvaging is tedious at best, and the ninja element is the only real "excitement" that can be had from it. Making wrecks an aggressive act (like can flipping / loot stealing) is pointless and making it a concordable act will kill a massive amount of salvaging because very few individuals abandon wrecks (including PVP wrecks).

So no.

Ranka Mei
Caldari
Posted - 2010.12.22 13:46:00 - [6]
 

Originally by: Aineko Macx
In before ninja salvager whine and in before grammar ****s.

If you had searched before, you'd have seen this has been brought up a million times.

When something is brought up a million times, consider that it might have merit.

Destination SkillQueue
Are We There Yet
Posted - 2010.12.22 14:20:00 - [7]
 

Originally by: Ranka Mei
Originally by: Aineko Macx
In before ninja salvager whine and in before grammar ****s.

If you had searched before, you'd have seen this has been brought up a million times.

When something is brought up a million times, consider that it might have merit.


The idea has been shot down just as often, so the number of times this has been discussed is pretty much irrelevant. I do like the suggestion just because the last thing it does is help the missionrunning industrial and I would enjoy the tears of people losing their priceless missionrunning ships in addition to their salvage.

De'Veldrin
Minmatar
Norse'Storm Battle Group
Intrepid Crossing
Posted - 2010.12.22 14:31:00 - [8]
 

Originally by: Ranka Mei
Originally by: Aineko Macx
In before ninja salvager whine and in before grammar ****s.

If you had searched before, you'd have seen this has been brought up a million times.

When something is brought up a million times, consider that it might have merit.


When it's been brought up a million times before consider that the devs probably would have changed it by now like they did for jet cans.

If they thought it was a good idea. They fact that they have not, and have, in fact, stated repeatedly that it works as they intended it to work all along, seem to indicate that no matter how much merit you happen to think the idea has, they who control the code that runs the universe do not agree.

And in the end, that is what matters.

Corina Jarr
Posted - 2010.12.22 17:38:00 - [9]
 

IU, theres no way for a wreck to be flagged. Cans have a transmitter, so it would be known who it belongs to. Wrecks are just piles of junk. No way to track who the junk belongs to.

Mara Rinn
Posted - 2010.12.22 22:38:00 - [10]
 

Originally by: Ranka Mei
When something is brought up a million times, consider that it might have merit.


I'll tell that to the guys down at the municipal council. They process a thousand claims a week from people caught running red lights who are claiming, "I didn't hurt anyone, so please let me off this time." And then there's my nephew who insists on having dessert before dinner. Should I feed him his ice cream and custard instead of meat and vegetables?

When something is brought up a million times, it just means that something has been brought up a million times. Only when you can present a cogent argument about ninja NPC-killers or ninja salvagers ruining the game will anyone take you seriously.

Interestingly enough, ninja salvagers love the fact that looting other people's wrecks makes them blinky red. They exploit this to get kill rights on the mission runner.

Rowan Kakuro
Posted - 2010.12.23 00:46:00 - [11]
 

Edited by: Rowan Kakuro on 23/12/2010 01:04:49
If you are worried that no one will abandon wrecks then how about this idea:
If I recall right, wrecks and cargo have a set life span. How about at that 50% lifespan mark the wreck becomes salvagable and lootable to all players. That way a ninja would still have his booty on the guy that doesnt like to salvage, and the guy who wants to salvage his wrecks can do so for the first 50% of the time.

I admit that ninjas have it hard and have to work to find their targets, but the mission runner is putting a more significant risk when running a lv4 (at least 50 mill in most cases). The average ninja salvager has spent most likely under 2 mill for their ship and the training time is like 2% the amount of time the lv4 runner has invested to do those missions. In the grand sceam it is not fair to the person that has worked all that time and paid the subscriptions to do so.

Most of mission runner points are far more valid than that of a ninja. The definition of an illegal act is a wrongful action, and ninja salvagers have wronged others.

In my opinion ninjas are just pirates that are afraid of getting shot.

Thyme Wasted
Posted - 2010.12.23 08:32:00 - [12]
 

Originally by: Sanctuary Champion
lots of industry builders rely on there salvage to make there money
If you need salvage so bad, simply learn to scan, and you can find all sort of wrecks in other people's missions.

It's great, they can't even shoot at you, and if you want to shoot at them, just steal from the can and the dumber ones will agress you, then you come back and blow them up with a pvp ship.

Korg Leaf
Super Batungwaa Ninja Warriors
0ccupational Hazzard
Posted - 2010.12.23 08:59:00 - [13]
 

Originally by: Rowan Kakuro
Edited by: Rowan Kakuro on 23/12/2010 01:04:49
I admit that ninjas have it hard and have to work to find their targets, but the mission runner is putting a more significant risk when running a lv4 (at least 50 mill in most cases). The average ninja salvager has spent most likely under 2 mill for their ship and the training time is like 2% the amount of time the lv4 runner has invested to do those missions. In the grand sceam it is not fair to the person that has worked all that time and paid the subscriptions to do so.



To be fair what risk, I have run lvl 4's in my tech 1 fitted dominix back in the day. I used to just drop drones and go afk for 15-20mins then come back and salvage or go to the next room. Lvl 4's are probably the easiest isk in the game in terms of actual playing skill (not sp) and risk.

As for the Op, I have said in most of these threads when that idea appears that it will hurt the mission runner more than ninja salvagers, as they will then come and complain when there billion isk mission running ship gets popped by some ninja salvager they rage shot.

Ranka Mei
Caldari
Posted - 2010.12.23 09:13:00 - [14]
 

Originally by: Mara Rinn

When something is brought up a million times, it just means that something has been brought up a million times.


No. When your ear hurts, and you want to see the Doctor about it a million times, chances are he'll start taking you seriously around, say, the 5th time you visit him. That's because "it just means that something has been brought up a million times" is just a phrase. In reality there are, of course, underlying reasons for people bringing up certain issues a lot. When that number gets into the proverbial millions, it's time to take the complaints seriously.

Quote:

Only when you can present a cogent argument about ninja NPC-killers or ninja salvagers ruining the game will anyone take you seriously.


Nah. That's my point precisely! Cogent arguments against ninja salvaging have been brought up a million times before already: they just need to be taken seriously once.

Ranka Mei
Caldari
Posted - 2010.12.23 09:29:00 - [15]
 

Originally by: De'Veldrin


When it's been brought up a million times before consider that the devs probably would have changed it by now like they did for jet cans.

If they thought it was a good idea. They fact that they have not, and have, in fact, stated repeatedly that it works as they intended it to work all along, seem to indicate that no matter how much merit you happen to think the idea has, they who control the code that runs the universe do not agree.


An argument which can be easily falsified as follows:

If the devs thought ninja-salvaging was okay, they would not have restricted tractor beam access to the owner of the wrecks. The fact they have, and have, in fact, stated repeatedly that it works as they intended it to work all along, seems to indicate that wrecks should be considered the sole property of the one creating the wrecks, and that an infringment of the owner's rights to said wrecks should cause the perpetrator to be flagged to the aforementioned owner.

Korg Leaf
Super Batungwaa Ninja Warriors
0ccupational Hazzard
Posted - 2010.12.23 09:33:00 - [16]
 

Originally by: Ranka Mei
Originally by: De'Veldrin


When it's been brought up a million times before consider that the devs probably would have changed it by now like they did for jet cans.

If they thought it was a good idea. They fact that they have not, and have, in fact, stated repeatedly that it works as they intended it to work all along, seem to indicate that no matter how much merit you happen to think the idea has, they who control the code that runs the universe do not agree.


An argument which can be easily falsified as follows:

If the devs thought ninja-salvaging was okay, they would not have restricted tractor beam access to the owner of the wrecks. The fact they have, and have, in fact, stated repeatedly that it works as they intended it to work all along, seems to indicate that wrecks should be considered the sole property of the one creating the wrecks, and that an infringment of the owner's rights to said wrecks should cause the perpetrator to be flagged to the aforementioned owner.


Or it could mean they still wanted the salvaging advantage to be in the hands of the wreck creator and therefore making it so it is NINJA salvaging not 'just park a salvage boat somewhere and tractor stuff to you' salvage

Ranka Mei
Caldari
Posted - 2010.12.23 10:11:00 - [17]
 

Originally by: Korg Leaf

Or it could mean they still wanted the salvaging advantage to be in the hands of the wreck creator and therefore making it so it is NINJA salvaging not 'just park a salvage boat somewhere and tractor stuff to you' salvage


What you are describing is probably closest to reality as it exists today.

However, under International Maritime Law, a foreign salvor is not entitled to salvage, since it is the right of the owner of any vessel to refuse unwanted salvage. Unless there's clear and convincing evidence of the "express abandonment" of the wreck (EVE actually provides such a mechanism). As such, since 'title' to the wreck is not abandoned until expressly stated by the owner, logic dictates that all rights to the wreck should remain with the owner until he does. In that regard EVE oddly deviates from common International Maritime Law.

Korg Leaf
Super Batungwaa Ninja Warriors
0ccupational Hazzard
Posted - 2010.12.23 10:12:00 - [18]
 

Originally by: Ranka Mei
Originally by: Korg Leaf

Or it could mean they still wanted the salvaging advantage to be in the hands of the wreck creator and therefore making it so it is NINJA salvaging not 'just park a salvage boat somewhere and tractor stuff to you' salvage


What you are describing is probably closest to reality as it exists today.

However, under International Maritime Law, a foreign salvor is not entitled to salvage, since it is the right of the owner of any vessel to refuse unwanted salvage. Unless there's clear and convincing evidence of the "express abandonment" of the wreck (EVE actually provides such a mechanism). As such, since 'title' to the wreck is not abandoned until expressly stated by the owner, logic dictates that all rights to the wreck should remain with the owner until he does. In that regard EVE oddly deviates from common International Maritime Law.


Why should EvE adhere to modern maritime law

Ranka Mei
Caldari
Posted - 2010.12.23 10:21:00 - [19]
 

Originally by: Korg Leaf

Why should EvE adhere to modern maritime law

Because it makes sense? :)

If you don't expressly give up title to your wreck, it's only logical that you get to keep all rights over it. EVE, and that's the funny part, does provide a mechanism to abandon your wreck, signifying you abandon your rights to it also; but then... and there's the kink in the current game mechanic, it essentially runs the whole act of abondoning moot, as it turns out you didn't have exclusive salvage rights to begin with.

Sessym
Amarr
Posted - 2010.12.23 10:43:00 - [20]
 

Originally by: Ranka Mei
as it turns out you didn't have exclusive salvage rights to begin with.


No, you and your corporation had exclusive tractor beam rights Laughing

De'Veldrin
Minmatar
Norse'Storm Battle Group
Intrepid Crossing
Posted - 2010.12.23 13:50:00 - [21]
 

Originally by: Ranka Mei

However, under International Maritime Law, a foreign salvor is not entitled to salvage, since it is the right of the owner of any vessel to refuse unwanted salvage.


By that logic, NPCs should own the wrecks of their ships, not the person who shot them, and unless the NPCs then abandon said ships, you should get flagged and shot for trying to steal their salvage.

Please please stop trying to apply arbitrary creations of modern human society to a game. It makes you sound like an idiot who can't separate fantasy from reality.

Ranka Mei
Caldari
Posted - 2010.12.23 15:15:00 - [22]
 

Originally by: De'Veldrin
Originally by: Ranka Mei

However, under International Maritime Law, a foreign salvor is not entitled to salvage, since it is the right of the owner of any vessel to refuse unwanted salvage.


By that logic, NPCs should own the wrecks of their ships, not the person who shot them, and unless the NPCs then abandon said ships, you should get flagged and shot for trying to steal their salvage.

Please please stop trying to apply arbitrary creations of modern human society to a game. It makes you sound like an idiot who can't separate fantasy from reality.


Please, please, try and keep your namecalling to a minimum, lest people think you're an idiot who can't win his arguments otherwise.

As for ownership of the wrecks, that choice lies squarely with CCP -- and they chose to give it to the missioner (immersion-wise, one could argue that their wrecks have been confisquated; they're pirates, after all, remember? But I digress). The point, however is, that salvage rights ought to follow the owner of the wreck (whoever that is); especially when CCP went out of their way to build in a way for the owner to abandon his wreck.

It is, in the end, really just a matter of internal consistency.


 

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