Pages: 1 2 3 :: [one page] |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Lear Hepburn
Caldari Ascendant Strategies Inc. The Transcendent
|
Posted - 2009.05.17 14:20:00 -
[1]
Clearly people are not happy about salvage and how it works at the moment. My intent here is to suggest what I see as the options, talk about a few of the clear pros and cons, and hopefully promote some unbiased discussion about each. I will be talking solely about salvage of NPC wrecks (PvP is a different matter entirely) and how that works, but may compare it to other game mechanics such as loot and jetcans, which I see as a separate issue. I see there as being 4 options:
1. Wrecks are owned by the killer of the NPC. 2. Wrecks are unowned. 3. Wrecks are removed. 4. Wrecks are owned by the killer of the NPC so long as certain circumstances hold. There are, of course, other possibilities, most of which offer some serious inconsistencies.
It is also worth noting the three things you can do to a wreck which affect it in some way: 1. Salvage 2. Tractor 3. Destroy The three interactions mentioned above currently elicit different responses. Salvage gets no response, tractoring a wreck you did not create is impossible, and destroying a wreck you did not create gets you Concorded. If you created the wreck, you can tractor it or destroy it. This is inconsistent and, I think, the source of much of the angst displayed here on the forum. I believe that you should get the same response for and ability to interact with the wreck no matter what it is you are doing, and I hope the options below will reflect this.
OPTION 1 If the wreck is owned by the killer of the NPC then any attempt to stop the owner from taking away his stuff should result in some sort of legal response. All three of the aforementioned interactions with wrecks would constitute such an attempt. The owner should be able to interact with the wreck in any way he pleases.
Possible responses include CONCORD and aggression timer. Since Concord currently only responds to crimes which are threats to life (shooting someone in HiSec without a valid reason) then Concord response would be out of context. An aggression timer on the Ninja Salvager (NS), in the same way that a can-flipper gets an aggression timer, would seem to be an appropriate response. This, of course, has its own issues as can be seen by much of the whining regarding can-flipping, although I think this would be less justified as the mission runner is generally far better armed than the miner. This in turn leads to the possibility of traps by pirates, but thatÆs just the way the game mechanic works for can-flipping too, so I see no problem.
Ownership of the salvage by the player would cause an increase to the overall income of the profession. Ratting and mission running, in particular, would have to have at least a portion of salvage income included in the professionÆs income, which may require a rebalance of either bounties, mission rewards, or both.
OPTION 2 Anyone can interact with a wreck in any way. They are considered a source of materials in the same way as asteroids are and can be salvaged, tractored or destroyed by anyone. This would lead to some confusion about wrecks containing loot, but as the current system allows salvaging of said wrecks to leave a lootcan, it would be no major change to cause loot to appear in a can close to but separate from a wreck. The wreck could then be interacted with and would not cause a response so long as the can was untouched. Such a change would seem to boost salvaging as a profession, as tractoring would cause the profession to take less time per area salvaged. There would still be the same amount of wrecks available though, so what would be boosted would be the efficiency of salvaging in terms of time spent. Any increase in salvaged materials made available due to an increase in the percentage of wrecks being salvaged would cause a drop in price of said materials and their consequent rigs, effectively meaning the market would even things out.
|
Lear Hepburn
Caldari Ascendant Strategies Inc. The Transcendent
|
Posted - 2009.05.17 14:21:00 -
[2]
OPTION 3 Remove wrecks and you remove the profession, you remove the use of salvage modules, and you waste the time of people who have skilled salvaging. I canÆt see CCP doing this to be honest, as it is a relatively new mechanic which seems to be generally liked.
OPTION 4 This is probably the most woolly one to describe and will probably cause the most debate. Basically, a wreck would start off owned by the player. This will continue to be the case unless a set of circumstances are breached. Examples of these circumstances which I have seen are: 1. The wreck is owned for a set period of time, after which the wreck becomes unowned. This requires an ownership timer, and would mean that in circumstances where there are large numbers of NPCs to be killed then the owner would effectively have less time per kill to salvage it. Maybe a 30-minute timer would be appropriate and would cause mission-runners to salvage room-by-room, reducing the impact of the boost in income from the salvage by taking more of their time. 2. The wreck is owned for the period the player who made it is still on-grid, becoming unowned when he warps out. This would enable gangs to leave a guard at the wrecks should they so desire, but could be seen as a nerf to solo mission-running. Again, this would encourage salvaging room-by-room as people go. 3. The wreck is owned until the mission is handed in. This would resolve the solo mission-runnerÆs problems, but not the ratterÆs as he has no mission. Where would he stand? This and #2 above would effectively hand ownership to mission-runners/ratters until they decide they donÆt want it, causing an income boost as described in OPTION 1 above. 4. The wreck is owned until the player disowns it through a right-click context menu option. Again, this effectively boosts income from missions/ratting as described previously. Also, what happens to wrecks which are left on-grid? 5. Any combination of the above, and more. Combining 1, 2, 4 and 5 above with making wrecks scannable by combat drones would allow salvaging to continue as a profession. Mission-runners would be protected while they are still there to claim ownership and would be able to continue to do so simply by having a friend on-grid û this is an MMO, after all. Should the mission-runner not want to salvage then the salvager can find the wreck even with no mission-runner present.
I'm sure there will be a few thoughts on this, but consistency I think is key to making people happy with the rules.
|
Santiago Fahahrri
Galactic Geographic
|
Posted - 2009.05.17 15:08:00 -
[3]
It's not broke, don't fix it. ~ Santiago Fahahrri Galactic Geographic |
Robert Caldera
|
Posted - 2009.05.17 15:09:00 -
[4]
Originally by: Santiago Fahahrri It's not broke, don't fix it.
what he said. Stop damn salvage threads already!!!
|
Kel Nissa
|
Posted - 2009.05.17 15:17:00 -
[5]
Quote: It's not broke, don't fix it.
It is
|
Benco97
Gallente
|
Posted - 2009.05.17 15:34:00 -
[6]
IT's fine as it it. You kill something and want it's salvage as well as it's loot? Fine, just take it.
But no, you want to kill something, leave it alone for an indeterminate amount of time and then salvage it at your leisure, it's not going to happen. CCP have said that they didn't intend salvage to be ANOTHER bonus for mission grinders.
If you REALLY want that salvage then TAKE IT, don't stop others from being able to do so.
Originally by: P'uck
You're a DUMBASS - bold italic underline at the VERY LEAST.
|
Robert Caldera
|
Posted - 2009.05.17 15:34:00 -
[7]
broken = defective = violates the specification
CCP stated multiple times salvage works as intended so it cannot be "broken" in the first line.
Some people merely dont like the current implementation but thats all.
|
Kahega Amielden
Minmatar Suddenly Ninjas
|
Posted - 2009.05.17 16:05:00 -
[8]
Quote:
Possible responses include CONCORD and aggression timer. Since Concord currently only responds to crimes which are threats to life (shooting someone in HiSec without a valid reason) then Concord response would be out of context. An aggression timer on the Ninja Salvager (NS), in the same way that a can-flipper gets an aggression timer, would seem to be an appropriate response. This, of course, has its own issues as can be seen by much of the whining regarding can-flipping, although I think this would be less justified as the mission runner is generally far better armed than the miner. This in turn leads to the possibility of traps by pirates, but thatÆs just the way the game mechanic works for can-flipping too, so I see no problem...
Wrecks are owned by no one. People are ****ing and moaning that their already over-profitable level 4s might sometimes take a slight income hit, even though salvaging never was intended to be extra income for the hisec missiongrind. If a missionrunner wants to be able to attack someone who is doing absolutely nothing illegal, then he can mission in lowsec/0.0 like other pirates.
Quote: Anyone can interact with a wreck in any way. They are considered a source of materials in the same way as asteroids are and can be salvaged, tractored or destroyed by anyone. This would lead to some confusion about wrecks containing loot, but as the current system allows salvaging of said wrecks to leave a lootcan, it would be no major change to cause loot to appear in a can close to but separate from a wreck. The wreck could then be interacted with and would not cause a response so long as the can was untouched....
Not bad. I don't see it being a huge issue; people underestimate how fast a maneuverable frigate can clear a wreck field, especially since CCP will allow usage of MWDs in missions. Either way, this would make salvage rules more consistent. I approve.
Quote: 5. Any combination of the above, and more. Combining 1, 2, 4 and 5 above with making wrecks scannable by combat drones would allow salvaging to continue as a profession. Mission-runners would be protected while they are still there to claim ownership and would be able to continue to do so simply by having a friend on-grid û this is an MMO, after all. Should the mission-runner not want to salvage then the salvager can find the wreck even with no mission-runner present.
Absolutely not. At no point is the wreck EVER owned by ANYONE. It is a resource to be harvested by the first one to get to it, much like asteroids.
|
Lear Hepburn
Caldari Ascendant Strategies Inc. The Transcendent
|
Posted - 2009.05.17 16:34:00 -
[9]
This isn't a whine, it's not complaining about ninja looting, it's a call for a bit of consistency with the way things work. I know a lot of people think it's not broken, me included, but a lot of other people think it is and, as I said, I think the reason for this is the inconsistency in the way we can interact with the wreck. Make the way we interact consistent and people will have absolutely nothing to whine about.
I did not express a preference for whichever of the options I stated, but if pushed I would go for option 2.
|
Fullmetal Jackass
|
Posted - 2009.05.18 02:56:00 -
[10]
Edited by: Fullmetal Jackass on 18/05/2009 02:58:38 Constanly spamming these threads with "It ain't broke" and "CCP says" won't make them stop coming up. You'll notice it's a different player starting each. This one is at least aimed at rational discussion. People obviously think it's a problem. You guys, just as obviously think it's not. Screaming louder or more often doesn't make you right. What right do you have to try and censor the forums of theads you don't like?
All players have a legitimate right to post thier point of view. Put up a legit counter arguement or stop trolling.
|
|
Fullmetal Jackass
|
Posted - 2009.05.18 03:02:00 -
[11]
Edited by: Fullmetal Jackass on 18/05/2009 03:04:21
Originally by: Benco97 But no, you want to kill something, leave it alone for an indeterminate amount of time and then salvage it at your leisure, it's not going to happen. CCP have said that they didn't intend salvage to be ANOTHER bonus for mission grinders.
Every post I've seen recently by CCP staff says wrecks are considered unowned. Duh. I've yet to see a post stating wrecks weren't added as extra income. In fact, I know of two during delevopement that say exactly the opposite:
Reported by CCP Oveur | 2007.03.19 18:46:07 "You're taking away our ISK! We don't make that much ISK!
Understandably percieved so based on the listing in the last blog so let's clarify that also. Direct ISK into your wallet as bounty from NPCs are not the way we reward you for the high level agent missions.
You can still make (tons) of ISK, but it's in the form of materials, tools, ship loot drop, salvaging, technology (hacking). You now have the choice to either capitalize on these items and make them worth more to other players by using the mini-professions or simply sell directly the stuff to other players.
The only difference is that we're not creating ISK out of thin air from CONCORD (Infusion) but rather giving you perishable items (Sink) which other players pay you for."
Also
Reported by CCP Oveur | 2006.09.26 12:58:59 "We also wanted to improve loot in general, so we finally went ahead and exchanged that pristine can that drops for a proper wrecked ship. That shipwreck is now salvage-able, where you will find scraps of components required to create Rigs, the new ship upgrades which currently have a heavy defensive focus."
|
Lear Hepburn
Caldari Ascendant Strategies Inc. The Transcendent
|
Posted - 2009.05.18 05:42:00 -
[12]
Originally by: Fullmetal Jackass Edited by: Fullmetal Jackass on 18/05/2009 03:04:21
Originally by: Benco97 But no, you want to kill something, leave it alone for an indeterminate amount of time and then salvage it at your leisure, it's not going to happen. CCP have said that they didn't intend salvage to be ANOTHER bonus for mission grinders.
Every post I've seen recently by CCP staff says wrecks are considered unowned. Duh. I've yet to see a post stating wrecks weren't added as extra income. In fact, I know of two during delevopement that say exactly the opposite:
Reported by CCP Oveur | 2007.03.19 18:46:07 "You're taking away our ISK! We don't make that much ISK!
Understandably percieved so based on the listing in the last blog so let's clarify that also. Direct ISK into your wallet as bounty from NPCs are not the way we reward you for the high level agent missions.
You can still make (tons) of ISK, but it's in the form of materials, tools, ship loot drop, salvaging, technology (hacking). You now have the choice to either capitalize on these items and make them worth more to other players by using the mini-professions or simply sell directly the stuff to other players.
The only difference is that we're not creating ISK out of thin air from CONCORD (Infusion) but rather giving you perishable items (Sink) which other players pay you for."
Also
Reported by CCP Oveur | 2006.09.26 12:58:59 "We also wanted to improve loot in general, so we finally went ahead and exchanged that pristine can that drops for a proper wrecked ship. That shipwreck is now salvage-able, where you will find scraps of components required to create Rigs, the new ship upgrades which currently have a heavy defensive focus."
Fullmetal, I'm not going to argue with you about whether or not salvage was intended as income for mission runners or not, but will instead suggest that it's a form of income you can take if you invest the time to do so, which seems to be the gist of the CCP quotes above.
For example, asteroids are clearly meant as income for miners, but a player with mining skills who turns up in a ship which is unable to take advantage of the asteroid will not make the income, nor can he claim the asteroids for himself and then go and get a ship to mine them - it's first come first served. The same is true of salvaging wrecks - you need the skills and the modules to take advantage of the available income. Now I realise that the miner did not "make" the asteroid in the same way tat the mission runner makes the wreck, but that actually gives the mission-runner an advantage over the miner: whereas all miners simply know there will be new rocks at the belt after downtime, meaning none has the advantage of intelligence, the mission runner knows when and where the wrecks will be because he put them there. Furthermore, since there is no limit to the number of missions one can do in a day, there is an endless supply of potential wrecks; there are only a certain number of roids in a field and a limited number of fields. The advantage clearly lies with the mission runner/salavager here as he has an unlimited number of wrecks to salvage and the intelligence of where to find them, and I consider these advantages the inherent reward they get for taking the time to make the wrecks. Adding actual legally-backed ownership would add a further unneccesary advantage and would make the income riskless. Leaving them unowned and making the mission runner have to take the time to salvage them adds the risk of ninja-salvaging to an otherwise large and riskless income stream (salvaging itself is riskless, not mission-running).
|
Sep'Shoni
Gallente Carpe Diem inc.
|
Posted - 2009.05.18 16:40:00 -
[13]
Originally by: Lear Hepburn [... OPTION 4 This is probably the most woolly one to describe and will probably cause the most debate. Basically, a wreck would start off owned by the player. This will continue to be the case unless a set of circumstances are breached. Examples of these circumstances which I have seen are: 1. The wreck is owned for a set period of time, after which the wreck becomes unowned. This requires an ownership timer, and would mean that in circumstances where there are large numbers of NPCs to be killed then the owner would effectively have less time per kill to salvage it. Maybe a 30-minute timer would be appropriate and would cause mission-runners to salvage room-by-room, reducing the impact of the boost in income from the salvage by taking more of their time. ...
I like this one.
It would help balance the missioning vs. mining income thing by slowing the missioners down and it would be a boon for new players in their high-sec ratting phase by giving them better picking out of the wreck clouds that accumulate around mining barges.
And its logically consistent with the current aggression timer on theft -- half an hour would be plenty of time for someone to decide they want or do not want the contents of the wrecks.
Sep'Shoni
Mining ore and making stuff. Its not just a job, its an obsession. |
Abrazzar
|
Posted - 2009.05.18 16:42:00 -
[14]
Originally by: Santiago Fahahrri It's not broke, don't fix it.
If it works, improve it. -------- Ideas for: Mining
|
Dasubervixen
|
Posted - 2009.05.18 16:51:00 -
[15]
Originally by: Abrazzar
Originally by: Santiago Fahahrri It's not broke, don't fix it.
If it works, improve it.
Salvaging doesn't need fixing or improving. It's fine just as it is.
|
Kel Nissa
|
Posted - 2009.05.18 17:16:00 -
[16]
Quote: Salvaging doesn't need fixing or improving. It's fine just as it is.
A feature without the need of improvment is already dead.
|
Straight Chillen
Gallente Solar Wind AAA Citizens
|
Posted - 2009.05.18 17:29:00 -
[17]
Salvaging is like the one aspect of this game that is fine how it stands. CCP has repeatedly said that all wrecks are considered space junk and that salvaging is essentially recycling the trash.
Either learn to salvage as you mission/rat/plex or whatever or pay a noob in your corp to do it. Please resize image to a maximum of 400 x 120, not exceeding 24000 bytes. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint |
silken mouth
|
Posted - 2009.05.18 17:52:00 -
[18]
1. ownership to wrecks + ninja salvaging -> consensual PVP 2. EVE = PVP focused game
1. + 2. = better EvE
quite simple
|
Lear Hepburn
Caldari Ascendant Strategies Inc. The Transcendent
|
Posted - 2009.05.18 17:56:00 -
[19]
Originally by: Straight Chillen Salvaging is like the one aspect of this game that is fine how it stands. CCP has repeatedly said that all wrecks are considered space junk and that salvaging is essentially recycling the trash.
Either learn to salvage as you mission/rat/plex or whatever or pay a noob in your corp to do it.
So what about the inconsistency of not being able to tractor/shoot these wrecks? That, after all, is what this is about.
|
silken mouth
|
Posted - 2009.05.18 17:59:00 -
[20]
Originally by: Straight Chillen Salvaging is like the one aspect of this game that is fine how it stands. CCP has repeatedly said that all wrecks are considered space junk and that salvaging is essentially recycling the trash.
Either learn to salvage as you mission/rat/plex or whatever or pay a noob in your corp to do it.
CCP have also repeatedly said that its the playerbase who develope the game...
the only people to have a reason to complain about such a change are people who want to steal without consequences.
|
|
Tamahra
Danke fuer den Fisch
|
Posted - 2009.05.18 18:02:00 -
[21]
salvaging is fine as it is. This is not eve offline, its eve online. Lrn2deal with other players interaction.
|
Kel Nissa
|
Posted - 2009.05.18 18:31:00 -
[22]
Quote: Lrn2deal with other players interaction.
Exactly that is what many of us want. Allow mission runners to interact with ninja salvagers - remove their npc (aka concord) protection while being inside their mission instance.
|
Lear Hepburn
Caldari Ascendant Strategies Inc. The Transcendent
|
Posted - 2009.05.18 18:53:00 -
[23]
Originally by: Kel Nissa
Quote: Lrn2deal with other players interaction.
Exactly that is what many of us want. Allow mission runners to interact with ninja salvagers - remove their npc (aka concord) protection while being inside their mission instance.
Of course, if the ninja salvager isn't really a ninja salvager and is, instead, a pirate out for an easy kill of an expensive faction setup PvE setup ship, they'd be able to find you in your mission instance too. Is that what you want?
|
Washell Olivaw
|
Posted - 2009.05.18 23:25:00 -
[24]
Miners complained about being unable to deal with people stealing from their cans. Now they're can-flipped, baited, abused in other ways and still unable to deal with people stealing from their cans.
If wrecks get ownership, things will not improve for missionrunners. Things will not improve for salvagers. Things will improve for pirates.
So the core question of this debate should be: Does (hi-sec) pirating need a boost?
Originally by: Signature Everybody has a photographic memory, some people just don't have film.
|
Fullmetal Jackass
|
Posted - 2009.05.19 02:09:00 -
[25]
Edited by: Fullmetal Jackass on 19/05/2009 02:09:26
Originally by: Lear Hepburn Fullmetal, I'm not going to argue with you about whether or not salvage was intended as income for mission runners or not, but will instead suggest that it's a form of income you can take if you invest the time to do so, which seems to be the gist of the CCP quotes above.
I didn't really wanna argue about it, I'm pretty sure you all know my views by now. I just wanted to point out the usual "salvaging is fine" BS as just that.
|
Fullmetal Jackass
|
Posted - 2009.05.19 02:14:00 -
[26]
Originally by: Washell Olivaw Miners complained about being unable to deal with people stealing from their cans. Now they're can-flipped, baited, abused in other ways and still unable to deal with people stealing from their cans.
If wrecks get ownership, things will not improve for missionrunners. Things will not improve for salvagers. Things will improve for pirates.
So the core question of this debate should be: Does (hi-sec) pirating need a boost?
You mean dumb miners complain. Smart miners have an alt or a couple buddies nearby to kill pirates.
Right now you don't even get that option with wrecks. Options and more pvp are a good thing.
|
Lear Hepburn
Caldari Ascendant Strategies Inc. The Transcendent
|
Posted - 2009.05.19 06:23:00 -
[27]
Originally by: Fullmetal Jackass
Originally by: Washell Olivaw Miners complained about being unable to deal with people stealing from their cans. Now they're can-flipped, baited, abused in other ways and still unable to deal with people stealing from their cans.
If wrecks get ownership, things will not improve for missionrunners. Things will not improve for salvagers. Things will improve for pirates.
So the core question of this debate should be: Does (hi-sec) pirating need a boost?
You mean dumb miners complain. Smart miners have an alt or a couple buddies nearby to kill pirates.
Right now you don't even get that option with wrecks. Options and more pvp are a good thing.
You'd be happy to have pirates able to turn up in your mission with the ability to kill off your expensive faction-fit PvE ship, would you? Or would you not risk it and just let the ninja salvager take the wrecks?
|
Fullmetal Jackass
|
Posted - 2009.05.19 06:34:00 -
[28]
Edited by: Fullmetal Jackass on 19/05/2009 06:39:37
Originally by: Lear Hepburn You'd be happy to have pirates able to turn up in your mission with the ability to kill off your expensive faction-fit PvE ship, would you? Or would you not risk it and just let the ninja salvager take the wrecks?
I don't faction fit my mission ship. T2 maybe some meta 4. I don't even rig my mission ship usually. I also mission in a command ship with a pvp fit from time to time. So yeah, I'd risk it.
Seriously, Pirates can already flag in my mission if they want to. I run missions in low sec/null sec if I can find a semi quite system. So why wouldn't I wanna be able to shoot at someone that's ****in me off? This game is supposed to be about pvp and "retribution as law".
|
Lear Hepburn
Caldari Ascendant Strategies Inc. The Transcendent
|
Posted - 2009.05.19 15:34:00 -
[29]
Originally by: Fullmetal Jackass Edited by: Fullmetal Jackass on 19/05/2009 06:39:37
Originally by: Lear Hepburn You'd be happy to have pirates able to turn up in your mission with the ability to kill off your expensive faction-fit PvE ship, would you? Or would you not risk it and just let the ninja salvager take the wrecks?
I don't faction fit my mission ship. T2 maybe some meta 4. I don't even rig my mission ship usually. I also mission in a command ship with a pvp fit from time to time. So yeah, I'd risk it.
Seriously, Pirates can already flag in my mission if they want to. I run missions in low sec/null sec if I can find a semi quite system. So why wouldn't I wanna be able to shoot at someone that's ****in me off? This game is supposed to be about pvp and "retribution as law".
Fair enough. So you'd go for option 1 I'm guessing. I'm sure that'd be fine until someone who deos faction fit their ship comes a-whining.
|
Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
|
Posted - 2009.05.19 15:52:00 -
[30]
Originally by: Abrazzar
Originally by: Santiago Fahahrri It's not broke, don't fix it.
If it works, improve it.
I suggest that we improve salvaging by making it a CONCORDable offence. You are desecrating a war grave, after all. This will immensely improve the value of salvaged components.
I also suggest that we stop salvaging this thread, over and over again.
|
|
ShadowDraqon
The Quantum Company
|
Posted - 2009.05.19 15:58:00 -
[31]
Edited by: ShadowDraqon on 19/05/2009 15:58:51 I have a suggestion.
Make empty wrecks tractorable/shootable by anyone. If there is loot in them, same as they are now.
page 2, yay...
~ MED-SEC ~ AND The Blatantly Obvious |
Parmala Udoni
|
Posted - 2009.05.19 16:19:00 -
[32]
Originally by: Robert Caldera
Originally by: Santiago Fahahrri It's not broke, don't fix it.
what he said. Stop damn salvage threads already!!!
Putz.
The sheer number of threads indicates that there is a problem.
|
Hariya
|
Posted - 2009.05.19 16:34:00 -
[33]
It's not broken so don't try to fix it.
If you absolutely must change anything, then make nothing in Eve to flag a pilot criminally.
|
Hariya
|
Posted - 2009.05.19 16:35:00 -
[34]
Originally by: Parmala Udoni
The sheer number of threads indicates that there is a problem.
Argumentum ad populum.
|
Parmala Udoni
|
Posted - 2009.05.19 16:36:00 -
[35]
Originally by: Hariya
Originally by: Parmala Udoni
The sheer number of threads indicates that there is a problem.
Argumentum ad populum.
lol
I prefer "the squeaky wheel gets the grease." It's not quite so pompous.
|
Hariya
|
Posted - 2009.05.19 16:46:00 -
[36]
Originally by: Parmala Udoni I prefer "the squeaky wheel gets the grease." It's not quite so pompous.
Sorry, my intent was not to be pompous. I just happen to have studied argumentation and logics formally, and as I am not a native English speaker I have nearly no knowledge of such sayings.
The truth just is that the fact that something gets voted by many, or brought up by many, does not mean that they are correct. In fact it rarely even correlates with anything except to prove that two things are abundant in universe: helium and stupidity.
Oh, I recalled one saying. 900 billion flies love eating ****, so it must be perfect food for you too?
|
Aargh
|
Posted - 2009.05.19 16:58:00 -
[37]
Please kill a profession off because someone occasionally salvages my wrecks in the overpopulated mission hub I play in.
The fail is strong in this one.
|
silken mouth
|
Posted - 2009.05.19 17:09:00 -
[38]
Originally by: Aargh Please kill a profession off because someone occasionally salvages my wrecks in the overpopulated mission hub I play in.
suggestion number 4 doesnt do that....
|
Kel Nissa
|
Posted - 2009.05.19 17:26:00 -
[39]
Quote: The truth just is that the fact that something gets voted by many, or brought up by many, does not mean that they are correct. In fact it rarely even correlates with anything except to prove that two things are abundant in universe: helium and stupidity.
The truth is also that even if it does not prove that something is correct, it does also not prove that they are wrong.
Or should i follow your argumentation more stright forward? Just because many are voting "the current featuerset has no issue", it does not mean that they are correct.
To summarize: your argumentation proves nothing.
|
Lear Hepburn
Caldari Ascendant Strategies Inc. The Transcendent
|
Posted - 2009.05.19 17:28:00 -
[40]
Originally by: Gypsio III
Originally by: Abrazzar
Originally by: Santiago Fahahrri It's not broke, don't fix it.
If it works, improve it.
I suggest that we improve salvaging by making it a CONCORDable offence. You are desecrating a war grave, after all. This will immensely improve the value of salvaged components.
I also suggest that we stop salvaging this thread, over and over again.
Only threats to life are Concordable offences. Remember that this particular thread is about consistency.
|
|
Hariya
|
Posted - 2009.05.19 17:29:00 -
[41]
Originally by: Kel Nissa To summarize: your argumentation proves nothing.
Usually things are not before they are proven to be. That's the order of things. However in argumentation the one making a claim first has the obligation to come with proof first. That means OP's point. That is what was just basically shot down, making all the rest in the whole thread just 100% moot points.
|
Lear Hepburn
Caldari Ascendant Strategies Inc. The Transcendent
|
Posted - 2009.05.19 17:30:00 -
[42]
Edited by: Lear Hepburn on 19/05/2009 17:30:29
Originally by: Hariya
Originally by: Parmala Udoni I prefer "the squeaky wheel gets the grease." It's not quite so pompous.
Sorry, my intent was not to be pompous. I just happen to have studied argumentation and logics formally, and as I am not a native English speaker I have nearly no knowledge of such sayings.
The truth just is that the fact that something gets voted by many, or brought up by many, does not mean that they are correct. In fact it rarely even correlates with anything except to prove that two things are abundant in universe: helium and stupidity.
Oh, I recalled one saying. 900 billion flies love eating ****, so it must be perfect food for you too?
I too have studied formal logic, and the use argument ad populum only stands if the argument can be proven to stand on other grounds or can be shown to not be dependant on popularity. By your use of the argument democracy is itself a logical fallacy.
As to your one saying, I am not a fly.
|
Lear Hepburn
Caldari Ascendant Strategies Inc. The Transcendent
|
Posted - 2009.05.19 17:35:00 -
[43]
Originally by: Hariya
Originally by: Kel Nissa To summarize: your argumentation proves nothing.
Usually things are not before they are proven to be. That's the order of things. However in argumentation the one making a claim first has the obligation to come with proof first. That means OP's point. That is what was just basically shot down, making all the rest in the whole thread just 100% moot points.
You mean burden of proof.
Then you missed my point. Read it again: it was a call for consistency in the mechanics which currently does not exist and I believe is causing the current dissatisfaction with the mechanic as it stands. All this was in the opening post.
That the dissatisfaction exists is demonstrable through the number of threads regarding ninja salvaging; that the inconsistency exists is demonstratable by trying to interact with a wreck; that the inconsistency is the cause of the dissatisfaction is a hypothesis I put forward in my opening thread, and one which can be proven or disproven by resolving the inconsistency in any of the manners I put forth in my opening posts.
|
Khalia Nestune
Suddenly Ninjas Tear Extraction And Reclamation Service
|
Posted - 2009.05.19 23:49:00 -
[44]
Originally by: Santiago Fahahrri It's not broke, don't fix it.
|
Aargh
|
Posted - 2009.05.20 00:49:00 -
[45]
Originally by: silken mouth
Originally by: Aargh Please kill a profession off because someone occasionally salvages my wrecks in the overpopulated mission hub I play in.
suggestion number 4 doesnt do that....
Yes it does unless you make wrecks scannable. CCP will not do that for performance reasons, I would imagine. |
Fullmetal Jackass
|
Posted - 2009.05.20 01:17:00 -
[46]
Edited by: Fullmetal Jackass on 20/05/2009 01:22:15
Originally by: Hariya Oh, I recalled one saying. 900 billion flies love eating ****, so it must be perfect food for you too?
It would be, if you were a fly.
I totally agree that just because something is popular doesn't mean it's right. However volume of complaint is usually a pretty good indicator that customer service needs to get on the ball.
Originally by: Hariya Usually things are not before they are proven to be. That's the order of things. However in argumentation the one making a claim first has the obligation to come with proof first. That means OP's point. That is what was just basically shot down, making all the rest in the whole thread just 100% moot points.
It seems to me that the OP's purpose was to facilitate productive discussion of a topic many people feel strongly about. It seems obvious to me when you read his post.
As I recall he's always dissagreed with me. |
Lear Hepburn
Caldari Ascendant Strategies Inc. The Transcendent
|
Posted - 2009.05.20 04:39:00 -
[47]
Originally by: Fullmetal Jackass It seems to me that the OP's purpose was to facilitate productive discussion of a topic many people feel strongly about. It seems obvious to me when you read his post.
As I recall he's always dissagreed with me.
Absolutely right. This should be clear from the second senctence of the opening post:
Originally by: Lear Hepburn My intent here is to suggest what I see as the options, talk about a few of the clear pros and cons, and hopefully promote some unbiased discussion about each.
And, for the record, I still disagree with you |
Tamahra
Danke fuer den Fisch
|
Posted - 2009.05.20 10:30:00 -
[48]
Edited by: Tamahra on 20/05/2009 10:34:28 fail arguments are fail. and they are so strong in this thread.
fact is: just because a vocal minority is trying to make something look popular, doesn't mean it's right.
Quite a bunch of mmo¦s have been patched into total trash, because of that vocal minority on the forums that constantly whined and mourned, until the developers believed those and gave them what they desired. Best example: Ultima Online / Trammel.
EA wanted to attract more players so badly and cater the game to a much wider audience so they introduced trammel (they actually believed UO was to harsh of a game to bring in more customers, due to the forum whiners). But where does UO stand now: From the day Trammel was introduced, their subs never increased anymore, but constantly declined from there.
Another good example is star wars galaxies: Why would someone ever introduce the bulls.thit that was the NGE, if not for trying to turn it from a good solid game into a huge cash cow. But they failed, because they forgot who their loyal playerbase were.
A game can never cater to everyone and their mother, unless its some stupid childish braindead crap like WoW.
Be careful what you wish for.
|
Fullmetal Jackass
|
Posted - 2009.05.20 10:48:00 -
[49]
Originally by: Tamahra Quite a bunch of mmo¦s have been patched into total trash, because of that vocal minority on the forums that constantly whined and mourned, until the developers believed those and gave them what they desired.
Changing a minor high sec mechanic isn't going to kill EVE. Eve is plenty hardcore. It's always gonna be hardcore. Salvaging cowers in corner of the basement in a house on the other side of town from hardcore.
|
silken mouth
|
Posted - 2009.05.20 12:46:00 -
[50]
Originally by: Tamahra Edited by: Tamahra on 20/05/2009 10:34:28 fail arguments are fail. and they are so strong in this thread.
fact is: just because a vocal minority is trying to make something look popular, doesn't mean it's right.
And therefore it is nerver going to be implemented, like CovOps cloaks on Stealtbombers, right? oh, wait.....
Originally by: Fullmetal Jackass
Changing a minor high sec mechanic isn't going to kill EVE. Eve is plenty hardcore. It's always gonna be hardcore. Salvaging cowers in corner of the basement in a house on the other side of town from hardcore.
nicely put...
|
|
Lear Hepburn
Caldari Ascendant Strategies Inc. The Transcendent
|
Posted - 2009.05.20 15:16:00 -
[51]
Originally by: Tamahra Edited by: Tamahra on 20/05/2009 10:34:28 fail arguments are fail. and they are so strong in this thread.
Feel free to back that up with anything even closely resembling an argument at any point.
Quote: fact is: just because a vocal minority is trying to make something look popular, doesn't mean it's right.
Totally agree, and I wish the government would bow to less minority pressure groups. I did nothing more than point out an inconsistency in the current game mechanics which, if resolved, may silence that vocal minority. What are your thoughts on that inconsistency?
Quote: Quite a bunch of mmo¦s have been patched into total trash, because of that vocal minority on the forums that constantly whined and mourned, until the developers believed those and gave them what they desired. Best example: Ultima Online / Trammel.
EA wanted to attract more players so badly and cater the game to a much wider audience so they introduced trammel (they actually believed UO was to harsh of a game to bring in more customers, due to the forum whiners). But where does UO stand now: From the day Trammel was introduced, their subs never increased anymore, but constantly declined from there.
Another good example is star wars galaxies: Why would someone ever introduce the bulls.thit that was the NGE, if not for trying to turn it from a good solid game into a huge cash cow. But they failed, because they forgot who their loyal playerbase were.
A game can never cater to everyone and their mother, unless its some stupid childish braindead crap like WoW.
Be careful what you wish for.
Nobody is suggesting a huge change like, say, ambulation or wormholes; I am merely suggesting a rethink of a current nonsensical game inconsistency.
|
Parmala Udoni
|
Posted - 2009.05.21 14:20:00 -
[52]
Originally by: Hariya
Originally by: Parmala Udoni I prefer "the squeaky wheel gets the grease." It's not quite so pompous.
Sorry, my intent was not to be pompous. I just happen to have studied argumentation and logics formally, and as I am not a native English speaker I have nearly no knowledge of such sayings.
The truth just is that the fact that something gets voted by many, or brought up by many, does not mean that they are correct. In fact it rarely even correlates with anything except to prove that two things are abundant in universe: helium and stupidity.
Oh, I recalled one saying. 900 billion flies love eating ****, so it must be perfect food for you too?
If you've studied logic then you must know what a false equivalency is.
|
Abrazzar
|
Posted - 2009.05.21 14:55:00 -
[53]
Or why not just overhaul the whole wreck/mission mechanic? And top it off with a T1 production change already been pondered about by the devs a while ago: T1 Construction Components.
- Wrecks no longer have modules in them. - Wrecks are not owned. - Activating a mission acceleration gate will aggress you to the mission owner and gang and corp unless you are part of the gang or corp. - Salvaging will yield salvage, T1 components and Meta Components that work as BPCs for meta level items.
So mission runners can attack intruders if they want to, wrecks will no longer confuse with ownership, T1 components drop amount can be controlled for mineral reprocessing yield and meta components don't reprocess at all while still adding meta modules to the market.
So no one will be happy and everything is balanced. -------- Ideas for: Mining
|
Lear Hepburn
Caldari Ascendant Strategies Inc. The Transcendent
|
Posted - 2009.05.21 21:06:00 -
[54]
Originally by: Abrazzar Or why not just overhaul the whole wreck/mission mechanic? And top it off with a T1 production change already been pondered about by the devs a while ago: T1 Construction Components.
- Wrecks no longer have modules in them. - Wrecks are not owned. - Activating a mission acceleration gate will aggress you to the mission owner and gang and corp unless you are part of the gang or corp. - Salvaging will yield salvage, T1 components and Meta Components that work as BPCs for meta level items.
So mission runners can attack intruders if they want to, wrecks will no longer confuse with ownership, T1 components drop amount can be controlled for mineral reprocessing yield and meta components don't reprocess at all while still adding meta modules to the market.
So no one will be happy and everything is balanced.
That is a complete rework of the salvage and loot system, something which is beyond the range of this thread. While I accept there is a plethora of methods of rewarding people for kills the scope of this thread involves keeping largely he same methodology. This is backed up in the reasons for my rejection of OPTION 3 as detailed on page 1.
|
Abrazzar
|
Posted - 2009.05.21 21:25:00 -
[55]
Originally by: Lear Hepburn That is a complete rework of the salvage and loot system, something which is beyond the range of this thread. While I accept there is a plethora of methods of rewarding people for kills the scope of this thread involves keeping largely he same methodology. This is backed up in the reasons for my rejection of OPTION 3 as detailed on page 1.
Your option 3 rejection does not even touch my option. I am not proposing the removal of wrecks and invalidation of the salvaging profession. Quite the opposite, I'm proposing an empowerment of it by making any and all loot salvage based. -------- Ideas for: Mining
|
Lear Hepburn
Caldari Ascendant Strategies Inc. The Transcendent
|
Posted - 2009.05.21 21:42:00 -
[56]
Originally by: Abrazzar
Originally by: Lear Hepburn That is a complete rework of the salvage and loot system, something which is beyond the range of this thread. While I accept there is a plethora of methods of rewarding people for kills the scope of this thread involves keeping largely he same methodology. This is backed up in the reasons for my rejection of OPTION 3 as detailed on page 1.
Your option 3 rejection does not even touch my option. I am not proposing the removal of wrecks and invalidation of the salvaging profession. Quite the opposite, I'm proposing an empowerment of it by making any and all loot salvage based.
What I said in my rejection of option 3 was: "I canÆt see CCP doing this to be honest, as it is a relatively new mechanic which seems to be generally liked." Maybe this wasn't clear enough but it effectively says that the mechanic as it stands works (insofar as any loot type mechanic works) and therefore is unlikely to be radically altered in any way, including removal. Your suggestion, while it may or may not work (insofar as any loot type mechanic works) would constitute such a radical alteration and is therefore not considered within the scope of this thread, i.e. the resolution of the inconsistncy which is explained in detail in my opening post.
|
Fullmetal Jackass
|
Posted - 2009.05.22 05:53:00 -
[57]
Edited by: Fullmetal Jackass on 22/05/2009 05:54:46
Originally by: Abrazzar
Originally by: Lear Hepburn That is a complete rework of the salvage and loot system, something which is beyond the range of this thread. While I accept there is a plethora of methods of rewarding people for kills the scope of this thread involves keeping largely he same methodology. This is backed up in the reasons for my rejection of OPTION 3 as detailed on page 1.
Your option 3 rejection does not even touch my option. I am not proposing the removal of wrecks and invalidation of the salvaging profession. Quite the opposite, I'm proposing an empowerment of it by making any and all loot salvage based.
And then we'd be right back where we started. With loot cans that anyone can take from, only now you need a module to pick it. I do kinda like the idea, but I don't think many people will go for it. It does makes sence though.
|
Fullmetal Jackass
|
Posted - 2009.05.22 05:58:00 -
[58]
Originally by: Abrazzar Or why not just overhaul the whole wreck/mission mechanic? And top it off with a T1 production change already been pondered about by the devs a while ago: T1 Construction Components.
- Wrecks no longer have modules in them. - Wrecks are not owned. - Activating a mission acceleration gate will aggress you to the mission owner and gang and corp unless you are part of the gang or corp. - Salvaging will yield salvage, T1 components and Meta Components that work as BPCs for meta level items.
So mission runners can attack intruders if they want to, wrecks will no longer confuse with ownership, T1 components drop amount can be controlled for mineral reprocessing yield and meta components don't reprocess at all while still adding meta modules to the market.
So no one will be happy and everything is balanced.
Actually, ya know what, good enough. This solves several problems at once. I could live with this.
|
OC 2av2
|
Posted - 2009.05.22 18:36:00 -
[59]
Edited by: OC 2av2 on 22/05/2009 18:39:25 Edited by: OC 2av2 on 22/05/2009 18:37:46 My vote:
Wrecks and contamination in it are unowned same as asteroids from the moment of creating wreck.
Explanation:
The nature solves similar problems very easy and very clear. We need to learn from THE NATURE.
It must be so, as given in the nature of the food chain. Who are stronger those are righteous. If the stronger got satisfaction of the nourishment and going away, then the prey is for those who are strongest of those who are left so on and so far.
I am not a naturalist, but it looks something like that:
Predator -> smaller predators -> birds -> rats -> bugs = no body remains.
Salvaging is like ôClear as you goö and no body remains. So I am thinking in this way: 1. Mission runner Kills NPC (A Predator kills a victim) 2. Mission runner takes cargo content an salvage it (Predator eats his victim) 3. Mission runner out of cargo (Predator satisfaction of the nourishment) 4. Mission runner wraps away (Predator going away) 5. Stronger Salvaging Ninjas with good ships and/or cool drones attempt to salvage rest wrecks (Smaller predators occupying body remains and eat it) 6. Weaker Salvagers, accidental people on frigates or even on rookie ships are observing Stronger Salvaging Ninjas, from so far distance, because Ninjas have OMGWTFBBQCOOL ships and can pop them if they comes too close. (Weaker predators, birds, rats are waiting in the queue)
Obviously:
If Mission runner is weaker as Salvaging Ninja, then Mission runner can lost everything and just save his ship by warping away as soon as possible without any loot, salvage or such. (If Predator who killed victim is weaker (like wolf or jackal) than another Predator (like Tiger or Lion), then after killing victim he can lost his prey.)
So, Ladies and Gentlemen, and CCP (which contains both of types),
I suggest for all of you apply intelligence of THE NATURE Moreover, please do not reinvent the wheel! It invented already!
|
Kel Nissa
|
Posted - 2009.05.22 19:17:00 -
[60]
Quote: 5. Stronger Salvaging Ninjas with good ships and/or cool drones attempt to salvage rest wrecks (Smaller predators occupying body remains and eat it)
You fail here. They are not stronger. They are just invulnerable because of concord.
|
|
Syringe
Oedipus Complex
|
Posted - 2009.05.22 19:28:00 -
[61]
OPTION 5 CCP removes salvage to shut salvage whiners up on the forums. --------- War isn't the answer. However, the objective isn't to provide answers rather than eliminate the question. |
Fille Balle
Dissolution Of Eternity Ethikos Trade Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.05.22 20:15:00 -
[62]
Originally by: silken mouth 1. ownership to wrecks + ninja salvaging -> consensual PVP 2. EVE = PVP focused game
1. + 2. = better EvE
quite simple
With such a name, I feel a need to make a statement:
2. Yes, you are quite right, no arguement here. HOWEVER, pvp != pewpew Killing other pc's with guns/missiles/drones/ddd is not the ONLY way to pvp in eve. eve has many forms of pvp: 1. Market pvp (buy low, sell high, before someone else does so) 2. Financial pvp (I can buy better mercs than you can, HAHAHA, you suck) 3. I think I've made my point...
Pewpew is simply fotm (or maybe not).
To everyone that's against "carebears": You should realize something. pvp is what you do to PROTECT your isk income. Not the be and end all of eve. This goes for all forms of pvp. PVE is what most people do for isk income. Those who can manage without NEVER complain on the forums.
I know some of these people, and they think most of the game is fine. They never operate in highsec, because they can't make as much isk there. Yes, that means: all you people that need to make isk via pvp in highsec are sucking the bottom of the stick!
L2P. You wanna live off of pvp, learn how to do it right, and stop trying to make other bottom feeders (that are doing much better than you btw) income worse. Besides, how is salvage agression worse than loot agression?
|
Kaylan Jahlar
Minmatar Minmatar Industrial Limited
|
Posted - 2009.05.22 20:39:00 -
[63]
Originally by: Dasubervixen
Originally by: Abrazzar
Originally by: Santiago Fahahrri It's not broke, don't fix it.
If it works, improve it.
Salvaging doesn't need fixing or improving. It's fine just as it is.
I agree completely.
I'm a salvager by profession, and I use a Thrasher (Destroyer) with 4x Salvagers and 4x Tractor Beams to do the job, and I make millions of ISK from it. I have countless hours of experience in salvaging and I don't see how the current system is defective at all. Wrecks spawn when you kill stuff, if the wreck has items in it, they are yours (much like a can), if the wreck is empty, it's free for all on salvage rights. Wrecks stay in space for 2 hours. That works for me.
There's no need for improvement on wrecks, they are more than fine as it is.
|
OC 2av2
|
Posted - 2009.05.22 20:49:00 -
[64]
Originally by: Kel Nissa
Quote: 5. Stronger Salvaging Ninjas with good ships and/or cool drones attempt to salvage rest wrecks (Smaller predators occupying body remains and eat it)
You fail here. They are not stronger. They are just invulnerable because of concord.
No, IÆm not.
By ôstrongerö I meant against another salvaging ninjas who have worse ships and worse modules. By ôstrongerö I meant stronger in that particular moment in the field.
If the Lion back û jackal will forced pull back, because Lion can kill him.
Oh yes, now I understood what you talking aboutà. Heheheà
Any way IÆm not felt, because I did not describe current situation about salvaging as you assumed (I guess), but I described order of things in the Nature and if some things are conflicting between description and salvaging reality at this moment, then (as I think, as I suggesting) it must be fixed according description.
It means on salvaging field must win who has better ship, better modules, better skills and better experience. Honestly, I donÆt see where can be useful CONCORD in this situation, because who are taking concord role in a wild jungle?
P.S. I donÆt want to say:öNo, IÆm not felt û you didö I think, you just accidentally did not get what IÆm talking about. DonÆt worry it happens with everyoneà some timesà
|
Kel Nissa
|
Posted - 2009.05.22 23:17:00 -
[65]
What a clueless moron.
|
Lear Hepburn
Caldari Ascendant Strategies Inc. The Transcendent
|
Posted - 2009.05.23 06:45:00 -
[66]
Originally by: Kaylan Jahlar There's no need for improvement on wrecks, they are more than fine as it is.
But you can't tractor them and you can't blow them up wihout being Concorded. How is that fine?
|
OC 2av2
|
Posted - 2009.05.23 20:53:00 -
[67]
Originally by: Kel Nissa What a clueless moron.
It is very pitiful to insult people just because those people have an opinion and suggestion how effectively solve current situation related with salvaging.
I suggest you back on the topic and create your own Idea, which could be good in this situation and then we can discuss about it.
Anyway, Ms Kel Nissa you cannot forbid people to create Ideas, find solutions and share it with community in this forum, even if you decide to keep insulting them because of that. It is very sad.
|
Poena Loveless
Minmatar Dawn of a new Empire
|
Posted - 2009.05.23 22:31:00 -
[68]
Edited by: Poena Loveless on 23/05/2009 22:32:25
Originally by: Fille Balle pvp is what you do to PROTECT your isk income. Not the be and end all of eve.
fixed.
And as for my 2 cents on the subject. NPC wrecks should be just like player wreck's: 'Owned' by the owner of the creating ship.
edit: and of course, with this, fix the tractor beam thing to not care about owners. would be very interesting to see tractor beams used in pvp :P
|
Kel Nissa
|
Posted - 2009.05.23 23:09:00 -
[69]
Translation: The response of your message was already written before you posted your message within the same thread.
|
Fullmetal Jackass
|
Posted - 2009.05.24 06:21:00 -
[70]
Originally by: OC 2av2 Predator -> smaller predators -> birds -> rats -> bugs = no body remains.
There is no food chain to high sec salvaging. You can't fight over salvage in high sec.
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 :: [one page] |