|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
|
Posted - 2011.04.23 18:48:00 -
[1]
Originally by: Amarraz If they're salvaging wrecks in mission, the wrecks I created, then that should be stealing, I should be allowed to respond.
What rewards are you willing to give up to be the default owner of the salvage? ùùù ôIf you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡à you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.ö ù Karath Piki |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
|
Posted - 2011.04.23 19:00:00 -
[2]
Edited by: Tippia on 23/04/2011 19:02:29
Originally by: Amarraz But, I would argue, it's doing precisely that--creating a free lunch for ninja salvagers.
They have to do more work than you do to get that salvage.
Quote: If I'm the one taking all the risk
What risk?
The risk you encounter in the actual mission is already being compensated for through the mission rewards, time bonuses, bounties, loot, LP, and standings increases.
Salvage is not part of those rewards ù it's something you have to do additional work to earn, and the amount of work you have to do is far less than the work the ninja has to do. So if anything, they've earned it more than you have.
If you want to add salvage to that list if mission rewards, the risk has to go up as well (and tbh, it should go up regardless because missions are essentially risk-free as it is). If you want to have the right to the salve without increasing the risk, we're back to the question: what reward are you willing to give up to get those salvage rights?
Quote: we all know salvaging is where the real mission money is
No. Salvaging generally drastically reduces your mission income. ùùù ôIf you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡à you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.ö ù Karath Piki |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
|
Posted - 2011.04.23 19:32:00 -
[3]
Originally by: Amarraz Missions are not risk free. That's spoken from the perspective, I'm guessing, of someone who's played the game for well over a year.
They were risk-free for me when I was 6 months old and few L4s in a (not even T2-fitted) battlecruiser.
Quote: I've lost more than a dozen ships in missions. You can blame this on a lack of skill
I think I willà
Quote: If it takes a ninja salvager 30 minutes to locate my mission wrecks (it took him considerably less), does that really outweigh even a 2% chance that I will lose a 500 million ship?
But here's the thing: you're not going to lose a 500M ship because of the salvage (wellà unless you shoot the salvager, that is). The 2% chance of losing that ship comes from the mission and that very small risk is already compensated for. The salvage is not part of the compensation package. If you want that salvage, you will have to earn it just like everyone else. You have a far easier time to earn it than anyone else, so if we look at the actual effort involved, you're less entitled to it than the ninja.
Quote: with ninja salvaging, there is absolutely zero risk.
That's fine, seeing as how there's absolutely zero risk with any (NPC) salvaging. Or, rather, it's a competition and the risk both sides face is that they'll not be fast enough to get the prize. ùùù ôIf you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡à you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.ö ù Karath Piki |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
|
Posted - 2011.04.23 19:43:00 -
[4]
Edited by: Tippia on 23/04/2011 19:44:42
Originally by: HeIIfire11 It is bad game design...period.
Why?
Quote: If it wasn't the wreck they are salvaging shouldnt be yellow with or without cargo.
Wreck abandonment wasn't in the game when salvaging was introduced ù it's not bad game design that a function that appeared four years later wasn't being employed. But yes, that should happen automatically if the wreck is empty.
Quote: If it wasn't you should be able to scan and warp to the wreck..not the player running the mission.
That's a problem with the scanning system, not with salvaging.
Quote: If it wasn't it wouldn't have the mission runners name on it.
See above.
Quote: If that isn't bad game design I don't know what is.
Not really. It creates competition over resources ù PvP. That's not really bad game design in a PvP-centric game.
Quote: You stop posting and I'll salvage it and even bring it to the ninja salvager
Why should I stop posting?
Quote: Always want to be so smart but can't see that this is bad game design at its best.
Why?
Originally by: Amarraz I do not see how it's whining to point out what I view as a glaring game flaw
Because you don't explain why it's a flaw.
Quote: I have a Ph.D. and am a professor
Then you should know that you need to provide arguments to support your claim. ùùù ôIf you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡à you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.ö ù Karath Piki |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
|
Posted - 2011.04.23 20:03:00 -
[5]
Originally by: I'thari
Originally by: Kahega Amielden ...Waay back in 2008, few people had ever heard of ninjasalvaging, myself included....
Only because salvaging was introduced no too long before that.
Two years earlier, to be exactà ùùù ôIf you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡à you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.ö ù Karath Piki |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
|
Posted - 2011.04.23 20:25:00 -
[6]
Originally by: HeIIfire11 But it doesn't...bad game design.
So, you're saying that, given that torpedoes in the future will also confer an ECM blast, it's bad game design that today's Golems are torpedo shipsà right.
No, it's not bad game design because the design did not exist at the time. It is not a problem with salvaging.
Quote: Problem none the less and....bad game design.
No. Technical limitations. It's not a problem with salvaging.
Quote: No,it's a sandbox.
In other words: a PvP-centric game.
Quote: If it was a "pvp-centric" game there would be no single player content.
Sure there would be. Just look at the game now: there's plenty of single-player content, but it's subject to competition.
Quote: Because you're a ccp fanboy
You haven't read anything I've written have you?
Quote: Because you weren't breastfed long enough. That's why fanboy.
So you agree, then, seeing as you have no argument and have to resort to ad hominems instead. Good.
Now, answer the questions: why should I stop posting? Why is ninja salvaging bad game design? ùùù ôIf you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡à you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.ö ù Karath Piki |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
|
Posted - 2011.04.23 20:34:00 -
[7]
Originally by: Amarraz Just because I wait to salvage the wreck doesn't mean I should forfeit my rights to it
Yes you do. You gain the rights to the salvage when you activate the salvager. If you let someone else do that before you, you've forfeited the rights to that salvage.
Quote: allowing game mechanics that essentially state I do not own a wreck I have created is simply nonsense.
Why? You're already getting compensated for creating that wreck. Why should you suddenly get even more without any additional effort?
Quote: Again, if it were limited to low sec, I would be an ardent defender of ninja salvaging. But in high sec?
What difference does it make if it's highsec? Highsec doesn't mean you're exempt from PvP, you knowà
Quote: If the EVE developers are really saying that the wreck doesn't belong to the person who created it, then why make a distinction between the loot it carries and the logic boards, etc?
Because it's that distinction that lets them say that. The carrier and the mechanics for obtaining loot and salvage are completely different. Because the two are part of different reward mechanics for different activities and different professions. Just because you can do both at once doesn't mean they're one and the same. ùùù ôIf you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡à you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.ö ù Karath Piki |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
|
Posted - 2011.04.23 20:40:00 -
[8]
Edited by: Tippia on 23/04/2011 20:43:05
Originally by: HeIIfire11 don't give me that technical limitation crap
Why not? The scanning mechanics are causing them technical headaches as it is.
Quote: This topic comes up every few months and creates pages of discussion but no,it's not bad game design right?
No. People making baseless assumptions about reward structures because they haven't taken the time to educate themselves is not bad game design.
In fact, I'd rather say it would be bad game design if people were given rewards without doing anything to earn themà and yet, that's exactly what the OP is asking for. Why should that happen?
Quote: And pvp-centric does not mean sandbox
No, but multiplayer sandbox means PvP (or a very limited sandboxà but fortunately, EVE doesn't have that huge restriction).
Quote: As far as me having read anything you said..it's not worth it
Then you have no basis for anything you say about me. So not only are you using ad hominems, you're also making an argument from ignorance. Guess what? Neither improves your caseà ùùù ôIf you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡à you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.ö ù Karath Piki |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
|
Posted - 2011.04.23 21:19:00 -
[9]
Originally by: HeIIfire11 That's not the players problem..just the cause of bad game design.
So you're saying that not being able to cram 30,000 people into Jita is bad game design? And speaking of which: what bad game design does this technical limitation cause? Quote: You are making baseless assumptions about reward structures by saying people are given rewards without doing anything to earn them.
No. I'm simply restating what has been said about the reward structure of missions. There is no assumption there.
Quote: Others might say doing the mission which creates the wreck is enough to earn them.
àand they contradict the stated design purpose.
Quote: Why should they do even more to earn the salvage?
Because otherwise it might as well be removed from the game. If they don't want to engage in the activity that earns them salvage, that activity serves no purpose.
Salvage was added for a reason. Padding mission-runners wallets is not it.
Quote: Who said anything about "multiplayer sandbox"?Eve calls itself a sandbox..not multiplayer sandbox.
CCP did. They were the ones who classified the game as an MMO. You might want to look up what that second "M" stands forà
Quote: A sandbox that includes pvp but is not limited to only pvp.
Actually, there's only two things you can do that isn't subject to PvP. So yes, it's pretty much limited to only PvP. ùùù ôIf you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡à you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.ö ù Karath Piki |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
|
Posted - 2011.04.23 21:58:00 -
[10]
Originally by: HeIIfire11 What are you talking about?
You're claiming that technical limitations are bad game design. I'm asking you how.
Quote: Without a quote what you say is worthless.
The quote has already been posted
CCP Prism X ôit's a mini profession designed for people who want to roam and look for salvage, not to further increase the revenue from mission grinding.. I doubt anyone with a perspective thinks we need to high-sec increase mission grinding [sic] any further.ö
Quote: If you do pull that one from somewhere it will just prove my point about it being bad game design
Why is it bad game design that you have to earn your rewards?
Quote: What you don't understand is that the problem people have with this is that its risk free for the salvager.
Yes? It's risk free for both parties aside from the fact that it's a competition. You risk being too slow. You stand to gain some salvage.
Quote: All that's being asked is that he is flagged so that we can do what you say this game is all about..pvp.
It's already about PvP. And again, if it's flagged, the mission runner has been given ownership over stuff without having earned it yet. Why should that happen?
Quote: If a mission runner wants the salvage he has to kill the rat
No. If the mission runner wants the salvage, he has to scoot over to the wreck and/or pull it closer with tractor beams, and then he has to activate his salvager. In short, he has to do something completely different than be a mission runner: he has to be a salvager.
Quote: what risk does the salvager have? None.
It's the same risk for both competitors, yes: that they might not be fast enough to win the prize.
Quote: I doubt it's padding a risk free griefers wallet either.
Who's griefing? It's there to pad salvagers' wallets. And guess what: it does exactly that. ùùù ôIf you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡à you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.ö ù Karath Piki |
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
|
Posted - 2011.04.23 22:52:00 -
[11]
Edited by: Tippia on 23/04/2011 22:53:49
Originally by: HeIIfire11 Where is the technical limitation first of all?
From what I understood, grouping together a cloud of items into one scannable object.
Quote: Quote where ccp states that this is the case.
Fanfest 2009 roundtable.
Quote: Like I said,It's designed for "people who want to roam and look for salvage" but you dont look for salvage now do you?
Sure you do. You look for it where you think you might find it.
Quote: It's bad game design because the salvager doesn't do anything or take any risks to earn it.
So in other words, you want NPCs to not create any wrecks, or at least limit mission runners from being able to salvage the rats they kill. After all, ninjas certainly have to do things to get to those wrecks (far more than the mission runners at least), and as mentioned, both parties have to win the competition in the endà
Ok, I have to rephrase my question it seems: why do you want to buff ninja salvagers so much? What have they done to deserve that?
Quote: Its a free give away for him protected by concord.
It's not protected by CONCORD until after you've earned it.
Quote: It's not risk free to the mission runner who has to fit his ship right,tank the dps and risk a ship that costs 20 more than the salvagers ship
And again: those risks are already compensated for through bounties, loot, mission rewards, time bonuses, LP, and standings. For the mission runner, the salvaging part has exactly the same risks as for the ninja (wellà perhaps not exactly ù they're lower for the MR since he has to do a hell of a lot less work to earn the salvage as well, and is starting out ahead in the competition).
Quote: Again..we are going in circles.The mission runner has earned it by killing it and having earned the ship and tools to do so in a lvl 4 mission.
No. That's how he earns the mission rewards. Salvage is not part of those rewards. If he wants to earn the salvage, he has to do what everyone else does: he has to be a salvager, with all the risks and rewards that entail (but you claim that there are no risks, so you can't really claim the mission runner has any more rights to the salvage for that reason).
Quote: The ninja does nothing but risk free scanning.
àwhich a lot more than the mission runner does.
Quote: It's the same risk?
Yes. Or wellà no: MR: Decides where and when a wreck appears. Is already on the scene. Can use tractors. Ninja: None of the above. He has to do the work of finding the wrecks and travelling between each and every one of them. So there's a higher risk for him that he won't get there in time.
Quote: I guess you started playing a day or two ago and missed the part where 90% of the time the goal of the salvager is to get into a fight with the mission runner or **** him off.
So now you're saying that there's a pretty darn huge risk of the salvager losing his ship, if he succeeds with his job.
So not only does the ninja have to work harder for the salvage, he also faces a much larger chance of losing his ship, and the mission runner has the advantage in every wayà and yet, the ninja isn't more entitled to the rewards?
Quote: Something has my name on it ßnd concord protects it when anyone but me touches it..it's mine.
àand seeing as how they don't protect it, it's obviously not yours.
Quote: There is no can inside that wreck.
Have you ever gone up to a wreck and tried to open it? Yes, there is a can inside that wreck. ùùù ôIf you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡à you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.ö ù Karath Piki |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
|
Posted - 2011.04.23 23:14:00 -
[12]
Edited by: Tippia on 23/04/2011 23:15:43
Originally by: HeIIfire11 Your answers are nonsense
Prove it. You have yet to even explain why it's poor game designà
Quote: you are running out of arguments and resorting to confusing your opinions with facts again.
You are confusing me with you. You have yet to post a single fact, and have only ever thrown out opinions about how things should be without explaining why.
Quote: Your using things that you claim were said at fanfest 2009 which are documented nowhere and can't be proven.Looks like you hit a dead end what?
Not really, no. You're just moving the goal posts to the point where they're now sitting in the parking lot in the next town over. The problem is still the same: you have yet to provide a single shred of argument as to why things should be the way you want them to be.
So the dead end is this: there is nothing wrong with ninja salvaging and you can't state a single reason why it should change. You are stating opinions that are contrary to facts. You make truth-claims based on these contrafactual opinions. You cannot keep your story straight ù one minute you want to see mission runners protected against ninjas, the other you want to buff ninjas and nerf mission runners. You are judging past features based on present and future mechanics that were not available at the time.
At any point when you feel like you want to back out of that dead end, you're free to do so.
Of course, seeing as how you always fall back on ad hominems and arguments from ignorance, which ruins any argument you would have had, backing up might not be available to you any longerà ùùù ôIf you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡à you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.ö ù Karath Piki |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
|
Posted - 2011.04.23 23:17:00 -
[13]
Originally by: HeIIfire11 If anyone els has a reasonable argument to add to this discussion I will be glad to answer.
How about you start? Provide a reasonable argument why mission runners should get rewards they haven't earned. ùùù ôIf you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡à you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.ö ù Karath Piki |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
|
Posted - 2011.04.23 23:27:00 -
[14]
Edited by: Tippia on 23/04/2011 23:36:38
Originally by: HeIIfire11 This is what I'm talking about.
How is explaining basic facts not productive? How is asking you to provide some kind of argument for change not productive? How is asking you to provide some explanation and reasoning for your claims not productive?
Quote: All my proof is stated in the post above and can be seen in game.
Then it should be very simple for you to provide all of the above. How about you go on and do that?
Quote: It's not my place to prove his point
It's your place to explain why the change you want to see is needed. How about you go on and do that?
Oh, and as for your edit: Originally by: HeIIfire11 My arguments on the other hand are facts.
Your arguments for what exactly?
Quote: 1.Wrecks are and stay yellow.
àbecause they contain a cargo can that has an owner, like all cargo cans.
Quote: 2.The player is scanned and not the wrecks which rules out roaming for wrecks lol.
àexcept that roaming for wrecks is still entirely possible, and that looking for wrecks where you stand a good chance of finding them doesn't mean it's not "roaming".
Quote: 3.Scanning down a mr and freely picking off his wrecks includes no risk at all.
So what? The risk is the same for all salvagers ù at least ninjas have to work for their wrecks.
Quote: 4.Concord will still pwn you if you shoot my emty wreck
àbecause they contain a cargo can that has an owner, like all cargo cans.
Quote: Bad game design.
What is? ùùù ôIf you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡à you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.ö ù Karath Piki |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
|
Posted - 2011.04.23 23:41:00 -
[15]
Originally by: HeIIfire11 This... Plus this = bad game design.
Why is that? Bad in what way? And why does it matter?
Quote: Those are my facts.
And what's your argument? What do you want changed? ùùù ôIf you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡à you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.ö ù Karath Piki |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
|
Posted - 2011.04.23 23:52:00 -
[16]
Originally by: HeIIfire11 I want the salvager flagged.
Why?
Quote: Simple easy change that brings forth what you say this game is all about..pvp.
Is this the reason why? At any rate, there is already PvP: you compete against other players for the salvage.
Quote: I want him to risk losing his ship just like the mission runner does
The mission runner does not risk his ship any more than the salvager does for one simple reason: they're both salvagers at that point. If there is any risk to the mission runner, there is risk for the ninja as well; if there is no risk for the ninja, there is no risk for the mission runner either.
The mission runner may (and I stress that due to how very unlikely it is) lose his ship in the mission, but that's what the mission rewards are for: to compensate for that risk.
Now, if you want salvaging to be risky (beyond the risk of the competition between the two), how do you want to make it equally risky for both parties? Spawn in NPCs? Flag everyone on grid against each other? How will this be handled when it's not NPC wrecks we're talking about? ùùù ôIf you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡à you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.ö ù Karath Piki |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
|
Posted - 2011.04.24 00:14:00 -
[17]
Edited by: Tippia on 24/04/2011 00:16:49
Originally by: HeIIfire11 Right because 20 million isk compensates for losing a mission battleship,t3 cruiser etc.Sorry I see no compensation there.
No, but you won't lose a ship for every mission, will you?
Quote: It's a risk for the mission runner because he has to tank the mission with his ******ed pve fitting and at the same time defend his salvage while the salvager is in a fast frig. The mission runner is webbed and scrammed in most cases which gives the salvager a clear advantage. The risk of competeing for the salvage is hardly fair.
The mission runner is still the one who decides where and when the wrecks appear and can deny the salvagers wrecks in more ways than one, and in some missions, he will be able to spawn new ships at will to threaten that frigate. He also has more tools at his disposal to get to those wrecks than the ninja has. Moreover, the mission-runner can choose to delegate the task of collecting the salvage and basically transfer all his advantages to this second party.
Most importantly, though, why should the mission-runner get a break because he brought the wrong tool for the job and the ninja did not?
Quote: This..is the reason for the unfinished miniprofession and bad game design.They don't take the time to figure this out
But there's nothing to figure out. The problem only exists if they make the change you want. As it is, with current mechanics, there is no bad game design ù the problem simply isn't there. So, if anything, they avoided bad game design in this case. Here, you are the one who didn't figure out the issue or its solutionà ùùù ôIf you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡à you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.ö ù Karath Piki |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
|
Posted - 2011.04.24 00:32:00 -
[18]
Originally by: HeIIfire11 just stating that its unfair that a ninja risks nothing and its due to lazy coding and unfinished game content.
And the counter-question is: why should he risk something when the competitor doesn't risk anything either? ùùù ôIf you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡à you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.ö ù Karath Piki |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
|
Posted - 2011.04.24 00:43:00 -
[19]
Originally by: HeIIfire11 God you're ignorant..reread the thread I'm not repeating myself for you.
àexcept that you haven't explained what risk there is to the mission runner as far as the salvaging of the wreck goes.
Yes, if he tries to do it in a suboptimal ship, he runs the risk of not getting the stuff. But why is that a bad thing? If the ninja tried the same, he'd run the same risk. The MR already gets special benefits as the owner of the loot cans; why does he need more? Shouldn't there be any benefits to picking the right tools for the job? ùùù ôIf you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡à you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.ö ù Karath Piki |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
|
Posted - 2011.04.24 01:36:00 -
[20]
Originally by: Neoexecutor ninja salvaging them is theft plain and simple (and should flag the thief)
Why? ùùù ôIf you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡à you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.ö ù Karath Piki |
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
|
Posted - 2011.04.24 01:39:00 -
[21]
Originally by: Neoexecutor Why not?
Doesn't work that way. You made the claim that it's "theft plain and simple". You explain why that's so.
So, again, why? ùùù ôIf you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡à you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.ö ù Karath Piki |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
|
Posted - 2011.04.24 01:57:00 -
[22]
Originally by: Neoexecutor Ok how about, i created the wreck and it is only logical it should belong to me thus taking it is theft.
But you didn't create the salvage. As it happens, the salvage does belong to whomever creates it.
And as mentioned numerous times already, you are already being rewarded for the creation of that wreck ù why do you need more? ùùù ôIf you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡à you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.ö ù Karath Piki |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
|
Posted - 2011.04.24 02:07:00 -
[23]
Originally by: Neoexecutor Yea sorry, thieves got to it first.
What did they steal?
Quote: It also happens it's the CCP that passes this absurd law.
Why is it absurd? They made the effort ù they got the rewards. Why should you get it if you didn't?
Quote: but i like to reap what i work for.
But you didn't work for the salvage, did you? If you did, you'd have it. ùùù ôIf you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡à you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.ö ù Karath Piki |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
|
Posted - 2011.04.24 02:34:00 -
[24]
Edited by: Tippia on 24/04/2011 02:36:20
Originally by: Neoexecutor Wrecks that i created.
You have many wrecks in your hangar, then, I take it?
No. What did they "steal"? Do you consider it stealing if someone runs across the finishing line faster than you do?
Quote: It's absurd because you get told that this wreck you created is only partially yours. I made the effort creating the wreck why should they get it?
You get compensated for creating the wreck. Why should you also be compensated for work they do? Why should you get the rewards for their effort? And no, you're not told that the wreck is only partially yours ù you're told that the wreck isn't yours.
The only wreck that's even remotely "yours" is the one you leave behind after your ship explodesà
Quote: Oh i was willing to work for it, but somebody stole the wrecks so i couldn't.
You were willing to, but you didn't because you were too slow. You "couldn't" in the same sense that you can't come first when you're second. If you could, you wouldn't be second ù you'd be first, and you'd have the salvage.
It's a race. You lost it. Why should the gold medal be yours?
Originally by: Christopher AET Lets make it simple. Shoot gun make wreck. Shoot salvager make salvage. Easy no?
Close. It's more like: shoot gun, make bounty and loot; shoot salvager, make salvage. ùùù ôIf you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡à you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.ö ù Karath Piki |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
|
Posted - 2011.04.24 03:18:00 -
[25]
Edited by: Tippia on 24/04/2011 03:18:27
Originally by: Neoexecutor Do you consider somebody taking your paycheck before you could, a race?
Since it's actually my paycheck and I get to dump them over a railing over a busy freeway block the payment, sic the cops at them, and suffer no ill consequencesà no. I wouldn't call that a race.
That's not what's happening here, though. What's happening here is that losing a race and claiming that the gold medal is yours for no particular reason (what you're doing) is drastically different from winning the race and then having the medal stolen from you (how the game actually works).
Quote: Loot and bounty are part of compensation (and to be technical some don't have either so salvage is the only compensation).
Are we talking about NPCs, player ships, or in general? In the first case, salvage is never the compensation; in the second case, none of it is compensation; and in the general case, salvage is the compensation for being a salvager and the source of the wreck is entirely irrelevant.
Quote: Why shouldn't salvage be?
Because there are already compensation schemes in place that cover normal kills. Salvage is the compensation for the salvager profession.
Quote: I shouldn't be compensated for the work they do
So why are you arguing exactly that? You want to have the right to salvage that someone else has created ù that someone else has earned by doing the things you do to earn salvage (i.e. they salvaged the wreck).
Quote: they are working with materials that belong to me.
Why do they belong to you? You haven't done the work required to earn them, after all (viz. scoot up to the wreck and activate the salvager).
Quote: By partially i meant that CCP tells you that loot is yours and the wreck is nobody's till it's claimed. To me that's illogical. Like getting paid for 100 hours of work, only you get paid for 80 and the rest 20 hours worth of money gets raced for by the rest of employees.
Yes. The loot is yours. The loot is not the wreck. The wreck isn't yours ù it's no-one's. The salvage belongs to whomever creates it. It's like working for 100 hours and getting paid for 100 hours, and then someone else buys the winning lottery ticket at "your" lottery vending place. Again: you get fully compensated for your work. The salvage is not part of that compensation ù it's something extra that you have to do extra work for, and which you have to compete with other players to win.
Quote: A race to claim something that isn't yours doesn't make it non theft.
So who's stealing from whom since it's a race between two people, neither of which own anything yet? ùùù ôIf you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡à you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.ö ù Karath Piki |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
|
Posted - 2011.04.24 04:51:00 -
[26]
Edited by: Tippia on 24/04/2011 04:53:03
Originally by: Neoexecutor You start loosing me man
Then pay attention.
The salvage isn't yours until you've earned it. You earn it by salvaging the wreck. Creating the wreck means you've earned the bounty & loot that comes with the wreck.
Quote: You somehow believe that creating a wreck is effortless
No. I believe that the creation of the wreck is already compensated for through the bounty and the loot. I also believe you need to argue the case that you somehow need to be paid more.
Quote: if it wasn't my effort to get standing with an agent to be able to run the mission, buy and fit the ship to run it and actually do the mission and kill the ships then that ninja salvager wouldn't even have anything to salvage.
And that effort is already compensated for through the bounty, loot, mission rewards, time bonuses, LP, and standings, with all the benefits they confer. Moreover, none of that effort actually lets you salvage any wrecks. To do so, you have to put different effort into it (and as someone who creates wrecks, this effort is much less than the effort a ninja has to put into it).
Two distinctly different sets of effort. Two distinctly different sets of rewards. Why is this so hard to understand?
Quote: This whole thread is about ninja salvaging, which mostly takes place in hi-sec mission sites ran by mission runners.
Then it's case 1: the salvage isn't part of the compensation.
Quote: In order to be a salvager you need to have wrecks. You can choose to create wrecks yourself or you can work on wrecks other people created. I'm ok with that, but i'm saying there should be repercussions for trying to make a living of an opportunity that others created.
I hope you do realise that this would basically mean that you want to remove the market (which basically means removing EVE altogether), and that your precious salvage will have no value? You are only two years old ù you are undoubtedly doing the exact same thing: you're making a living on the opportunities others have created for you.
Unfortunately, the whole game is about taking advantage of opportunities that others create. It's built into every last fibre of the game. If you don't want to compete for (or make use of) these opportunities, this is not the game for you.
Quote: Because i shot the ship and created the opportunity for salvage to be had.
Then you should be in the optimal position to take advantage of that opportunity.
Oh, and while you're at it, you should also look into the concept of opportunity cost and realise that ninjas actually make you earn more ISKà
Quote: Lol are you trying to imply that i (mission runner who created the wrecks) am stealing from ninja salvagers if i salvage while i kill ships?
No. I'm saying that that's basically what you were saying. The wreck belongs to no-one; two people are racing to claim something they do not (yet) own; apparently, this is not non-theftà So who steals from whom in that situation? You seem to imply that the winner always steals from the loser. ùùù ôIf you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡à you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.ö ù Karath Piki |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
|
Posted - 2011.04.24 05:44:00 -
[27]
Edited by: Tippia on 24/04/2011 05:46:32
Originally by: HeIIfire11 Point is just because ccp says so doen't make it good.
And the counter-point is that just saying it's not good doesn't make it so either. You need to be a bit more specific than thatà
Quote: The only thing that earns less is mining
àand salvaging, funnily enough. Oh, and highsec exploration. And courier running. Probably L1ûL3 running as well. T1 manufacturing has pretty thing margins too.
Quote: On top of the constant nerfing that lvl4 missions get you now have this flawed "miniprofession" where any noob two weeks old can come and help himself to your earnings.And all that risk free under the protection of concord.
àand yet, L4 mission runners seem so protective of that risk-free n00b profession. Why is that (especially considering how much more they could earn if they ignored it)? Also, seeing as how the mini profession was put in place quite some time ago, I wouldn't really call it "on top of" either.
Quote: On top of all that you have some almighty-all knowing oracle(Tippia)that will stop at nothing to try and justify their actions.
No. I'm simply asking why it needs to be changed. I'm telling you why it is the way it is right now, and you need to explain why it's bad that it works that way and why (and how) it would be improved by doing things differently.
Quote: Why not just remove high sec and see how long the game lasts?
What does that have to do with anything? ùùù ôIf you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡à you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.ö ù Karath Piki |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
|
Posted - 2011.04.24 05:57:00 -
[28]
Edited by: Tippia on 24/04/2011 06:03:42
Originally by: HeIIfire11 missions are the most boring way to make isk
It's boring because it's consistent. You earn a good amount of money at a steady pace. This trumps earning very large amounts of money very occasionally.
Quote: But in a wormhole you can earn well over 500 mill
In a wormhole, you are subject to actual risk, so the rewards are meant to match that.
Quote: in exploration you can find an item worth over a billion isk
àat which point we're no longer talking highsec (so again, the rewards match the risk).
Quote: At the end of the day you cant make that much running missions.
Yes you can, because of that consistency: you may only earn 20û30M a pop, but you earn it consistently, at will and on demand. And you do it with zero risk. You may only be able to bring in a couple of hundred mill a day, but you can do it any time you like.
In exploration, you might earn more, but chances are you'll earn less, and on average, it doesn't come close because you cannot maintain that consistency and because you have to compete with other players for the goodiesà
Oh, and you can find items worth a quarter-billion ISK in missions too (but that's subject to the same randomness as in exploration)à
Quote: The market as well,you can earn a billion in a day if you put your mind to it and have the time and isk.
àand if you're willing to subject yourself to the inherent PvP and risks that comes with it.
Quote: I have told you over and ove again in this thread why it needs to be changed.
Not really. You've pointed to a couple of things you consider design flaws, but fixing those would only buff ninja salvaging, and you seem to want it to go in the other directionà
The question remains: why should mission runners earn more?
Quote: I also explained how it would improve things by flagging the salvager.
Yes, you claim it will create PvP. The problem is that there is already PvP, so where's the improvement?
Quote: ccp threw out some sloppy "miniprofession" that if changed could offer some good pvp combat situations which you say you value so highly.
Don't put words in my mouth, please.
Quote: I'm just stating my opinion and that of many others which is why these threads keep popping up.
And I'm just stating the facts of why the game works the way it does. Hopefullly, someone will be able to explain why it shouldn't work that wayà ùùù ôIf you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡à you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.ö ù Karath Piki |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
|
Posted - 2011.04.24 06:16:00 -
[29]
Originally by: Neoexecutor Same way you can argue that if i don't take my loot in time it's ok to ninja that too without a flag.
No. The loot is yours because you've earned it. You earned it by killing the ship in question.
Quote: Running a salvage module on a wreck is as much formality as opening cargo hold of a wreck
No. Running a salvage module on a wreck is as much formality as running a weapon module on a ship.
Quote: Oh i'm sorry i missed the memo that says "don't you dare to desire that salvage from the wrecks you'll be creating".
Don't be silly. Of course you can desire it. You just have to earn it in order to actually own it. If you didn't desire it, you wouldn't make the effort to earn it, now would you, so it would be rather stupid of them to post that kind of memo.
Quote: It goes without saying man, i shoot ships down, put effort into it, and i feel entitled to that salvage as long as i am willing to do the actual salvaging.
And you feeling entitled to it is entirely irrelevant as far as the compensation mechanics for various professions go. I may feel entitled to this nice moon right next to the corp HQ where I could place a POS, but that doesn't mean that the moon must therefore be mine.
Quote: Problem is that, it's hard to do while i'm busy shooting ships
No it's not. Just scoot over there and start salvaging.
Quote: I already mentioned few times, i am willing to put effort into salvaging. And since these wrecks are created by me, i feel that someone else salvaging them while i'm still finishing the shooting part is in fact stealing.
So don't wait. It's hardly the game's fault if you willingly give the competitors a head start.
Quote: I don't call for removing anything.
You want there to be ôrepercussions for trying to make a living of an opportunity that others createdö. This would make the market a very harsh place (and it's already really nasty as it is) to the point where it really couldn't be used any moreà
Quote: Well this case is unique, because there is no way to deal with ninja salvager without hurting yourself even more (shooting wrecks).
It's not unique in any way. It's standard competition over the same resource ù you see that everywhere in EVE. Of course, you do have ways of dealing with the ninja, so that part isn't really true to begin with.
Quote: No i should have the right to claim the fruits of this opportunity.
You already have. ùùù ôIf you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡à you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.ö ù Karath Piki |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
|
Posted - 2011.04.24 06:21:00 -
[30]
Edited by: Tippia on 24/04/2011 06:26:21
Originally by: HeIIfire11 Funny you should say this but its not true.Missions have been nerfed so that you can earn as little as 5 mill or less sometimes per mission.
àand those missions are disposed with in 5 minutes. So you're still making 60M an hour.
Quote: And on those that you do earn 20-30 mill its including salvage
No, that's if you ignore the salvage (and loot) and go for what actually makes you any money. Of course, you could salvage (and loot) them as well, and it would rise to maybe 30û40 million, but why would you waste your time on such a small bump in income?
Quote: This too I have yet too see.
Run more Worlds Collide. And no, it hasn't been removed.
Quote: Now you're putting words in my mouth and if you don't want me to do it then show me the same respect.I said pvp combat situations.
Yes. And I said that there is already PvP. Why would this be an improvement? Why is it a good thing that more mission runners get killed?
Quote: Why does everything you say have to be facts?
It doesn't. But that doesn't change the fact that I'm stating facts about how (any why) the game works the way it does and that it's up to you to explain why it shouldn't work that wayà ùùù ôIf you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡à you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.ö ù Karath Piki |
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
|
Posted - 2011.04.24 06:33:00 -
[31]
Originally by: HeIIfire11 You just know the outcome don't you.
What other outcome would there be? ùùù ôIf you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡à you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.ö ù Karath Piki |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
|
Posted - 2011.04.24 06:41:00 -
[32]
Originally by: HeIIfire11 I'll leave it to someone else to teach you how to play.
What does that have to do with anything?
Quote: I'm am no fortune teller like you but in my mission space it wouldn't be that easy I can tell you that now.
Good for you. But it doesn't really answer the question: what other outcome would there be?
àbecause you are considering the potential, possible and probable side-effects of your proposed change, aren't you? ùùù ôIf you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡à you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.ö ù Karath Piki |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
|
Posted - 2011.04.24 06:49:00 -
[33]
Originally by: HeIIfire11 Ok now you're being really dumb.The other outcome is that the ninja dies because it would be a lot of fun to sit there and wait for him.
àbut you claim that they are griefers ù don't you think they'll take this into account and actually plan their attacks to match the fine new opportunities the increased aggression rules allow for?
Quote: And with enough backup to face **** what ever else he warps in.
Good for you. So why doesn't this already happen? ùùù ôIf you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡à you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.ö ù Karath Piki |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
|
Posted - 2011.04.24 06:57:00 -
[34]
Originally by: Neoexecutor And the right to salvage should be mine for the same reason.
Why?
Quote: I'm glad we agree that it's merely a formality for owner to deal with.
So why is it such a chore for him to do that and actually earn the salvage?
Quote: I think we've been through the earning part already.
Yes. It's kind of the key issue, you knowà
Quote: Did you put some effort into creating that moon?
I put some effort into finding the great spot yes.
Quote: Yea sure i'll tell those 40 npc's to put aggro on hold.
Why would you have to put them on hold?
Quote: I wish i could be cool like you and fly a ship that can kill lvl4 mission rats and salvage faster than a ninja in a speedy small salvaging ship at the same time.
Pretty much all of them can.
Quote: Try not wonder into areas irrelevant to subject at hand.
So don't bring up irrelevant points.
Quote: Making ninjas flag won't break the market i promise.
If the reason for doing so is because there must be ôrepercussions for trying to make a living of an opportunity that others createdö then yes. Yes it would.
Quote: Competition in this case is rather padded in ninja's favor i'm afraid.
Not really, no. It's merely a formality to do so, after all, and you have plenty of advantages as it is. It's not the game's fault if you choose to give up those advantages.
Quote: Then if i have the right to it, it's pretty clear that somebody else claiming MY right is a thief.
No. It's just that he has the rights to it as well. ùùù ôIf you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡à you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.ö ù Karath Piki |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
|
Posted - 2011.04.24 06:59:00 -
[35]
Originally by: HeIIfire11 And?
And that will increase the number of killed mission runners. Is that really what you want to accomplish?
Quote: Because they are protected by concord thats why.
I mean, why does this not already happen in all the cases where it already can happen?
Quote: And no one will make the effort to set up something like that for tha slight chance that the salvager has the balls to loot something.
How large a chance will it be with your change in place? ùùù ôIf you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡à you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.ö ù Karath Piki |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
|
Posted - 2011.04.24 07:15:00 -
[36]
Originally by: HeIIfire11 It will also increase the death rate of ninja salvagers.But you just forgot that part right?
No. I just don't think it will happenà
Quote: I've told you what I want to accomplish.
Yes, and I'm saying I don't see that happening.
Quote: Wut?
Why are people not raping faces of loot theives and can flippers already?
Quote: Quite a bit higher as im sure many mission runners have wanted to blast one knowing the alpha would melt the salvager at that range.
àand with your changes in place, why would the salvagers use those ships? ùùù ôIf you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡à you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.ö ù Karath Piki |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
|
Posted - 2011.04.24 07:18:00 -
[37]
Originally by: Neoexecutor Because.
Not good enough. Why?
Quote: I found a rat and killed it,
àand got the compensation that comes with this act. Why do you need more?
Quote:
Quote: Pretty much all of them can.
Why?
Because they're built that way.
Quote: Yes, really, yes.
The game isn't responsible for the choices you make.
Quote:
Quote: No. It's just that he has the rights to it as well.
Why?
Because its subject to competition. ùùù ôIf you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡à you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.ö ù Karath Piki |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
|
Posted - 2011.04.24 07:22:00 -
[38]
Originally by: Neoexecutor WHY?
See the CCP Prism X quote earlier in the thread. ùùù ôIf you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡à you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.ö ù Karath Piki |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
|
Posted - 2011.04.24 07:27:00 -
[39]
Originally by: HeIIfire11 You mean the one that confirms that it's a fail game design?
No, the one that confirms that salvage isn't part of the mission rewards. ùùù ôIf you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡à you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.ö ù Karath Piki |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
|
Posted - 2011.04.24 07:29:00 -
[40]
Originally by: Neoexecutor Just did. Made as much sense as the last time. Close to none.
Which part did you have problems understanding? ùùù ôIf you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡à you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.ö ù Karath Piki |
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
|
Posted - 2011.04.24 07:38:00 -
[41]
Edited by: Tippia on 24/04/2011 07:40:14
Originally by: HeIIfire11 The part where he says "because it's a mini profession designed for people who want to roam and look for salvage" yet you cant scan down wrecks.
Why doesn't that make sense to you? Not being able to scan down wreck doesn't keep you from roaming around looking for them, or from hunting down locations where wrecks are likely to be found.
Originally by: Neoexecutor Same part you conformed to.
Which isà? And why do you have problems understanding it? ùùù ôIf you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡à you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.ö ù Karath Piki |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
|
Posted - 2011.04.24 08:06:00 -
[42]
Originally by: Neoexecutor In before "Why does it defy logic?".
So if you can predict the question, why not simply answer it?
Wrecks are there to provide salvagers with something to salvage from. Why should the salvage belong to you, rather to a salvager, without any effort on your behalf?
Originally by: Ivorr Bigun it was my ammo, my time, my standings and my acceptance of that mission that caused the salvage to exist in the first place.
No it was not. None of that created any salvage whatsoever.
It was someone's salvaging module that did.
Quote: As such its not too much to ask that stealing my salvage should flag the ninja.
Stealing your salvage already flags the thief. ùùù ôIf you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡à you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.ö ù Karath Piki |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
|
Posted - 2011.04.24 08:28:00 -
[43]
Originally by: HeIIfire11 Already been answered..reread the thread.
àand that answer was answered in turn. Time to respond to that.
Quote: Why not?
Not a sufficient reason. So again: Why should the salvage belong to you, rather to a salvager, without any effort on your behalf?
Quote: Nope.
Yes it does. Learn the mechanics before commenting.
Originally by: Neoexecutor Well if i did you couldn't ask "why" and since that's about all you're doing tonight it would be rude of me to leave you without a comeback.
Do you know why I keep asking that question? Because you keep not answering it.
Why should you get the salvage without any effort on your behalf? Why do you need to be paid more than you already are?
Quote: Wreck wouldn't exist if i didn't create it.
So what? The purpose of the wreck is to create something for salvagers to hunt down and salvage. What makes your participation relevant in those proceedings?
Wreck wouldn't exist if the miners didn't create the minerals in your ship. Are you saying that the salvage should belong to them? Why are you stealing from the poor miners ù unlike you, they could really need the buff.
Quote: If i created the wreck then it's mine to salvage, leave to rot or destroy it.
Why should it belong to you and not to the salvager for whom it actually serves a purpose? What have you done to deserve it? Why should you get the salvage without any effort on your behalf? Why do you need to be paid more than you already are? ùùù ôIf you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡à you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.ö ù Karath Piki |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
|
Posted - 2011.04.24 09:12:00 -
[44]
Edited by: Tippia on 24/04/2011 09:15:20
Originally by: Neoexecutor I don't want to salvage effortlessly and i don't want to be paid more.
Then you need to stop claiming that they're stealing from you.
Quote: What i want is that things i create would belong to me.
But that's just it: the rewards you create already belong to you. You didn't create the salvage (which, as mentioned so many times now, are the rewards for a completely different and separate activity), but you still want to claim it as yours. In other words, you want to get paid more, and you want the salvage to belong to you without any additional effort.
Quote: I created the wreck, that's what makes my participation relevant.
Yes, you created something that exist for salvagers to make use of, much like the ship manufacturer created ships for you to make use of. Why does creating that resource give you any say in how it is used? Should the ship manufacturers have any say in how you use the ships they created, or is it none of their business seeing as how the resource is actually there for you and you're the one who's actually making use of it?
And more to the point: you didn't participate in the creation of the salvage ù if you did, it would be yours. So why should you have any say as to whom it belongs to?
Quote: I paid for my ship with ISK. As in ownership rights were given to me for an exchange of certain amount of ISK. I don't see ninja salvagers offering me any isk for my wrecks.
Why should they? The wrecks aren't yours after all ù they were created for any salvager to come and use. If you don't want any salvager to come and use them, don't create them; don't let salvagers find you; don't let salvagers get the wrecks; etc etc etc.
Originally by: Raiykjab Seems also to be leading more toward this important part of the game, you know... PVP
Not really, no, since the whole problem is that there's already PvP, which apparently drives people nutsà v0v ùùù ôIf you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡à you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.ö ù Karath Piki |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
|
Posted - 2011.04.24 09:39:00 -
[45]
Originally by: Neoexecutor Is this some kind of lame threat over the internet.
No, it's a simple dichotomy: either you say that they're stealing, in which case you're claiming stuff is yours (without any additional effort on your part) ù it wouldn't be stealing otherwise, after all ù which means your income is suddenly higher than before, or you say that you're not interested in free hand-outs and increased income, in which case no-one is stealing anything because the stuff isn't yours, so they can't steal it from you. The two cannot be combined.
Quote: I created the material that makes the salvage. I should be the owner of this material.
àexcept that it was created for the salvagers to make use of, so there is no more ownership than over any other base resource. It's entirely possible to cultivate rocks in this game ù this doesn't mean they belong to the minerà
Quote: What i decide to do with it is irrelevant.
Congratulations: yes it is irrelevant what you decide. Well, it's irrelevant so far as how it limits what anyone else can do with said material unless your decision is to salvage it right this minute before they get the chance.
Quote: Right because manufacturer just hands out his ships for free right?
What they decide to do with it is irrelevantà
Quote: Aaaaaand we're back to CCP SAYS SO AND IT'S THE TRUTH
And that's the terrible truth: it is the truth because CCP says so. And you still need to provide an explanation for why it should be otherwise. Why should you own the wrecks just because you made them spawn? Why should you own the salvage just because you made the wrecks spawn?
Why shouldn't it instead belong to the person who made the effort to actually create the salvage? ùùù ôIf you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡à you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.ö ù Karath Piki |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
|
Posted - 2011.04.24 09:41:00 -
[46]
Originally by: HeIIfire11 Why do you just assume that all ninjas are superior?And why do you assume that every mission runner has this officer fit ship?
Because previous experimentations in the area has proven this to generally be true. ùùù ôIf you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡à you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.ö ù Karath Piki |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
|
Posted - 2011.04.24 09:50:00 -
[47]
Originally by: Neoexecutor I think it's funny you murder endless PC's and expect to have exclusive rights to their stuff afterwards.
No they don't expect that for the simple reason that they don't have it.
Quote: I think it's funny you manufacture endless trade goods and expect to have exclusive rights to them afterwards.
They expect that because they do in fact have those rights.
Quote: I think it's funny you scam endless noobs and expect to have exclusive rights to their stuff afterwards.
They don't expect that because it's not actually the noob's stuff afterwards ù instead, they expect to have exclusive rights to their own stuff, which they do have.
Quote: I think it's funny you colonize endless planet's and expect to have exclusive rights to their products afterwards.
Again, they expect it because they do have it.
Quote: I think it's funny you trade endless trade goods and expect to have exclusive rights to profits afterwards.
If there are any profits, then they do indeed have the rights to those and the expectation is entirely reasonable. ùùù ôIf you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡à you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.ö ù Karath Piki |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
|
Posted - 2011.04.24 10:11:00 -
[48]
Originally by: Neoexecutor Pretty sure it was a request by you to me to stop making claims about things i believe in.
"Pretty sure" doesn't make you right, unfortunately. No it wasn't.
Quote: Yeah well see the rock is created by the server for anyone to take, miner came processed the rock into ore and voila ore is his.
So you don't know about rock cultivation I take it?
Quote: I already said it's fine with me that they salvage it. But pretending like they're claiming some natural resource is not.
Why not? That's what it is, after allà
Quote: Yea, what's relevant tho is that those ships do belong to him.
You mean like how the salvage belongs to those who create it? Viz. the victorious salvager?
Quote: Dude i already drew like 5 analogies (in and out of game) on why i think it's wrong, but you seem to skip them.
No, they just don't answer the question: why should it be yours just because you made it spawn? Why should you be handed additional assets without any additional effort?
Quote: Because he's producing salvage from wrecks that should not (IN MY OPINION) belong to him.
And guess what: the wrecks don't belong to him. ùùù ôIf you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡à you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.ö ù Karath Piki |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
|
Posted - 2011.04.24 10:14:00 -
[49]
Edited by: Tippia on 24/04/2011 10:16:12
Originally by: HeIIfire11 My point is that is that theres nothing free in eve.Some may say ore is free but it costs you time as well.Why should a ninja salvager be able to zip in without risk and help himself to the salvage?
Because he put the required effort into it.
Quote: Missionrunner creates wreck..ninja comes to claim it.
àexcept that that's not really what happens.
And the question remains: if PvP is the answer to the perceived problem, why is it that people hate the PvP that ninja salvaging already creates?
Originally by: Neoexecutor So you don't find it funny at all that all those activities produce ownership rights, but killing an npc doesn't?
There's just two problems: not all of those do, and killing NPCs does. ùùù ôIf you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡à you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.ö ù Karath Piki |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
|
Posted - 2011.04.24 10:18:00 -
[50]
Originally by: HeIIfire11 But according to the post from ccp you quoted until its in your cargo its not yours.
Don't be silly. There are plenty of locations where stuff is yours (hangars, cans, cargo holds, delivery holds, etc). Sitting unrealised in a wreck is just not one of them. ùùù ôIf you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡à you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.ö ù Karath Piki |
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
|
Posted - 2011.04.24 10:23:00 -
[51]
Edited by: Tippia on 24/04/2011 10:23:27
Originally by: HeIIfire11 Because people aren't ready for it due to unclear game mechanics.
First of all, aren't ready for what? What are you referring to?
Also, what's unclear about the game mechanics? First to finish a salvaging cycle on the wreck owns the salvage. It's far more simple and clear than the loot mechanicsà ùùù ôIf you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡à you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.ö ù Karath Piki |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
|
Posted - 2011.04.24 10:37:00 -
[52]
Edited by: Tippia on 24/04/2011 10:40:47
Originally by: Neoexecutor Sorry, but i'm still "pretty sure".
Ok, that just makes you wrong then. Good we cleared that up.
Quote: I know they weren't created by other players and when i cultivate them i don't steal.
Of course you don't, but neither do you steal when you drill away at the rocks someone else has been cultivating, and that's the whole point. Just because you made sure something that's worth-while to harvest existed in the game doesn't automatically make it yours.
Quote: I think closest that we can get to a natural resource in EvE is something that is spawned by a server. Wrecks are not.
Wrecks are most certainly spawned by the server, otherwise they wouldn't show up, now would they?
àand as HI explains: they are to salvage what rocks are to ore ù they're on the natural resource level from which a base material is extracted.
Quote: No i mean like material that produces salvage belongs to someone who created the material in the first place.
àexcept that it's meant to be a free-for-all resource from which salvagers can extract their salvage. So why should it belong to you? And why should the salvage that is extracted from it belong to you?
Quote: Yes, just because.
Not good enough.
Quote: Like ore belongs to a miner "just because" he activated miner module on a rock.
It's not "just because" ù it's the reward structure for shooting lasers at rocks. The reward structure for shooting ships does not include the wreck, and most certainly not the salvage (you get bounties and loot instead). So no, it's not the same thing. ùùù ôIf you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡à you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.ö ù Karath Piki |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
|
Posted - 2011.04.24 11:09:00 -
[53]
Edited by: Tippia on 24/04/2011 11:15:26
Originally by: Neoexecutor Well with the powers of persuasion (guns) i told the server to spawn them, so credit is mine.
And the question remains: so what?
Quote: You keep hiding behind CCP's policies without giving any reasoning yourself why it shouldn't?
Because I'm not the one who is asking for a change of those policies. You are. So you are the one who needs to provide the reasons why such a change is needed and why it would be a good thing.
Quote: And no i don't want free salvage. And no i don't want to be paid more for no effort.
Then you need to stop claiming that they're stealing your stuff.
Quote: So why make wrecks an exception?
They're not an exception ù they follow the pattern of rocks to a t: the reward structure for shooting wrecks with salvagers is salvage.
Quote: So says CCP.
Yes. Provide some reasoning why it shouldn't be that way.
Why should the wreck be yours just because you made it spawn? Why should you be handed additional assets without any additional effort? Why should the salvage other people create belong to you? ùùù ôIf you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡à you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.ö ù Karath Piki |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
|
Posted - 2011.04.24 12:11:00 -
[54]
Originally by: HeIIfire11 Wrong,I addressed everything like I said before and I don't believe you read more than the first page.The first page in which
àyou didn't say anything about salvaging and just blathered on about bad game design. You also didn't in any way address the point HI made. ùùù ôIf you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡à you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.ö ù Karath Piki |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
|
Posted - 2011.04.24 12:22:00 -
[55]
Edited by: Tippia on 24/04/2011 12:22:45
Originally by: HeIIfire11 For the fith time..reread the thread.
Yes, please do. You'll quickly notice that, contrary to what you claimed, you didn't address any of HI's points on page 1.
Quote: Really?
You were talking about the lack of automatic flagging of wrecks and about scanning wrecks. So yes, really. The closest you got was to say that shooting wrecks was a good way to counter ninja salvagers. ùùù ôIf you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡à you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.ö ù Karath Piki |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
|
Posted - 2011.04.24 12:27:00 -
[56]
Originally by: HeIIfire11 you cant tractor beam anyone elses wreck because its theirs..which Tippia says it isn't.
The wreck isn't; the can is. You can't move one without moving the other, which means the wreck stays put as well. ùùù ôIf you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡à you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.ö ù Karath Piki |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
|
Posted - 2011.04.24 12:58:00 -
[57]
Edited by: Tippia on 24/04/2011 13:02:26
Originally by: HeIIfire11 Reread my post again I didn't say I addressed his issues on page one.I said I addressed them in this thread.
àwhich you haven't done.
Your points in the thread up to that point:- Empty wrecks should turn blue.
- You should be able to scan wrecks.
- Ninjas are griefers.
- Shoot the wrecks to counter-grief.
- EVE is a sandbox, not a PvP game.
- CCP's stated reward structures are not the actual reward structures.
- Technical limitations are design flaws.
- Salvaging is risk-free.
- You can't roam for salvage.
- Mission-running is risky.
- Ninjas should be flagged.
- Mission rewards do not cover the risk of ship loss.
- Salvaging is really risky for mission runners, but not for salvagers.
- L4s pay too little.
- Missions are boring.
- Riskier activities pay more.
- Flagging ninjas would create combat opportunities.
- Ninjas are easy to kill.
- Dev statements on salvaging are not relevant in a salvaging discussion.
HI's points that were somehow addressed by all of that:- Ninja salvaging isn't effortless.
- Fun is subjective.
- Players don't create wrecks.
- Players can defend wrecks.
- CCP's game ù CCP's rules.
àehhhmmmà So yeah, you've not really addressed any of those points. The closest match is that you say salvaging is risk-free (but also very risky) and HI saying that salvaging isn't effortless.
However, I do see quite a few of those tautologies and insults HI mentioned, in addition to pure inaccuracies, contradictions and ignorance of basic game mechanics. ùùù ôIf you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡à you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.ö ù Karath Piki |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
|
Posted - 2011.04.24 16:21:00 -
[58]
Edited by: Tippia on 24/04/2011 16:24:52
Originally by: HeIIfire11 You say the following are points of his (HI) which were somehow addressed,yet below that you say they were not.
No. You claimed that you had somehow addressed them; the list shows that, in fact, you had not. Thus: lie. And the list goes onà
Quote: I agree on the tautologies and insults but disagree on the inaccuracies, contradictions and ignorance of basic game mechanics.Those are your opinion because until you develope the game or work for ccp you have no more facts than I do.
It's not so much that I have more fact as that you blatantly contradict facts that both of us are fully aware of.
Quote: I didn't say it wasn't a PVP game.
Yes you did: In response to me calling it a PvP-centric game, you said ôNo,it's a sandbox.ö
Quote: I didn't say that [you can't roam for salvage]
Yes you did: ôThe player is scanned and not the wrecks which rules out roaming for wrecks lol.ö
Quote: Mission rewards do not cover the risk of ship loss.
Yes they do. The risk of ship loss in missions is nil. The income from missions is large. You'd have to lose a ship at least as often as every second storyline mission for them not to cover that minuscule risk, and guess what? No-one loses ships at that rate to such an simple and risk-free activity. If you do, it's not that the missions are risky ù it's that you're not ready for them or running them correctly.
This whole claim is trivially disproven by the fact that people are earning tons of money from L4s without going into the red through constant ship loss.
Quote: Salvaging is really risky for mission runners, but not for salvagers.
You said that by saying that it was unfair that there was no risk for the salvager ù an unfairness I questioned by asking ôwhy should he risk something when the competitor doesn't risk anything either?ö, to which you answered ôGod you're ignorantöà which can only mean that there is some immense risk for the mission runner (otherwise it wouldn't be unfair, nor would asking where the unfairness lies be ignorant).
àgranted, when asked, you chose not to specify what this huge risk was. Perhaps because no such risk actually exists?
Quote: [Dev statements on salvaging] don't address the issue with the wrecks being yellow and having the mission runners corp name on it which causes the disagreement.They also don't address why you can't warp to wrecks instead of players when the system is most likely full with blue wrecks that will be wasted in two hours time.
The problem is that you claim the quotes are worthless and that they don't ôaddress any of the topics mentioned in this thread.ö This is blatantly false. They address the the core topic of the thread ù just not your particular points. ùùù ôIf you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡à you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.ö ù Karath Piki |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
|
Posted - 2011.04.25 11:32:00 -
[59]
Originally by: HeIIfire11 This one is very very interesting and a major key in my argument. You quoted the part that you wanted to see but not the relevant part. One of the most used arguments are "it's not your wreck and only the loot inside is yours". I am going to kill this argument once and for all [à] Wow..now this brings a whole new light on the subject now doesn't it?
No it doesn't.
Quote: This along with the fact that the wreck has my corp name on it,can not be shot or tractor beamed by anyone but myself and my corp clearly proves that the wreck is in fact...
àno-one's.
Where else would the ownership of the loot be communicated except on the wreck? On the can, of course, but the can is contained inside the wreck.
Why can't I tractor the wreck? Because it contains a loot can that belongs to someone else.
What happens when the wreck is removed? The ownership display is transferred to the loot can.
What else happens when the wreck is removed? Nothing. Most notably, no theft flags are issued.
Why is salvaging not stealing? Because nothing that you own is removed. Let's repeat that: removing the wreck through salvaging does not remove anything you own ù if it did, there would be aggression flags flaring up all over the place. Removing the wreck removes nothing you own because you do not own the wreck.
Quote: But he doesn't address any of the key points players bring up in this or any other thread on this subject.
Yes he does, mainly because you didn't quote the full post: Originally by: CCP Prism X If you're surprised as to why the server does not consider it your stuff, it's because it's a mini profession designed for people who want to roam and look for salvage, not to further increase the revenue from mission grinding.. I doubt anyone with a perspective thinks we need to high-sec increase mission grinding any further.
àand thus your confusion about Ytterbium's quote is explained: the wreck ownership changes came about because the loot ù the stuff contained by the wreck ù is part of the mission reward mechanism, and being able to redirect those rewards by shooting more than the mission owner broke that mechanism. Salvaging is not part of that mechanism. Salvage is not part of the mission rewards. You have to earn the salvage, and doing the mission and "creating the wrecks" is not how you do that ù salvaging is.
So the fact remains: the salvage is not yours. Regardless of what semantic spins you want to take on the matter of wreck ownership, salvaging wrecks is never stealing. Nothing of yours is removed (again: removing the wreck ≠ removing your stuff ù the wreck is not yours). You are deprived of nothing. The only thing that is yours is the loot.
Therefore, instead of going through aaaaall of that every time, it is far easier to make that distinction: the loot is yours, the wreck is not. The ownership flag on the wreck says who owns the loot can contained by the wreck ù a can that is released if the wreck is removed through salvaging.
Originally by: HeIIfire11 What is harsh about scanning down a player who cant shoot you,and salvaging his wrecks while he tanks the mission?
You know full well what he's talking about: it's harsh for the mission-runner. He cannot live in a nice peaceful bubble of his own, and will have to live with people coming in and doing things that he might not like. Things like competing for available salvage.
Quote: there is infact a problem at hand that causes this confusion
Yes, but the solution to that problem is the exact opposite of what all mission runners want: make it crystal clear that they only own the loot by not marking the wreck with their names and by somehow still marking the loot contained inside. So the question is: if you see the confusion as the issue that needs solving, how do you propose to fix that issue? How do you propose to communicate the ownership of the loot without displaying it on the wreck? ùùù ôIf you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡à you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.ö ù Karath Piki |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
|
Posted - 2011.04.25 11:43:00 -
[60]
Edited by: Tippia on 25/04/2011 11:44:52 Oh and (since I managed to squeeze that post through with 0 characters left)à Originally by: HeIIfire11 He has spoken with the designers and they have concluded that the wreck is not mine but the loot is. Why then after the wreck is looted,does it remain unchanged? I still can't shoot it or tractor beam it as a salvager or someone not in that corp.
Because the can is still there and it still belongs to you. Yes, since a little while ago, this could be fixed by automatically turning empty wrecks blue, but that option has only been available for a very short timeà
Quote: This again confirms a problem and a contradiction in the game design as far as salvaging goes.
No it doesn't because the game design as far as salvaging goes was put into place five years ago and (again) the option to turn wrecks blue has only been available for a very short time.
Not incorporating or making use of features that would not be in the game for another four years is not bad game design in the salvaging system. If you want to call it anything, say it's a failure to iterate, but that is something completely different. ùùù ôIf you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡à you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.ö ù Karath Piki |
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
|
Posted - 2011.04.25 12:09:00 -
[61]
Oh, and I forgot this one.
Quote: Exactly a sandbox..which includes but doesn't limit it to pvp just like I said.
Except that, as a sandbox, there is always PvP unless it's a limited sandbox. EVE doesn't have those limits. Sandbox means you are given a set of tools and are then free to do what you like. This also means that, without that no-PvP limit, people are also allowed to do what they likeà to you. This automatically turns the sandbox into a full-PvP game. Everything you do is PvP in one way or another. Calling a game "not a PvP game", when everything you do in it is PvP, is somewhat disingenuousà
Quote: Yea I said the player is scanned and not the wrecks.Why would that rule out anything?
I don't know. You are the ones who said it rules out roaming for wrecks.
Quote: Stop putting words in my mouth.
I'm not. That is a copy-paste quote.
Quote: You can roam by flying from belt to belt or roam by checking out ded plexes but what we are currently talking about has nothing to do with roaming in my opinion.
Scanning down likely locations for wrecks is not roaming? Riiiightà
Quote: What I explained to you once and didn't want to explain again is that the mission runner has enough risk doing the mission,more than the salvager has getting the salvage.
In other words, there is zero risk for the mission runner in getting the salvage, just like for the ninja. Again: the (non)risks inherent in mission running is paid for by the mission rewards. Salvage is not part of those rewards.
Quote: Which again is exactly what I said lol
No, what you originally said was ôYour "infoblock of pertinent dev quotes" is worthless because it doesn't address any of the topics mentioned in this thread.ö, which is false.
Quote: Look at all your lame responses like "why" or "not good enough" or "why not" that you posted
Asking you to clarify your position ù asking you to explain why you give a particular unqualified answer (or dismiss something out of hand) is not really lame. It's about making you argue your case. If you think that arguing your case is "lame", then we are getting close to understanding why your ideas have such problems gaining tractionà
Quote: You don't accept what is being said but continue to ask the same questions over and over again.
àbecause you don't qualify your statements or argue for your proposals. If you don't, that "why" is what you get. ùùù ôIf you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡à you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.ö ù Karath Piki |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
|
Posted - 2011.04.25 12:18:00 -
[62]
Edited by: Tippia on 25/04/2011 12:19:26
Originally by: Ania Hyperthron You pop a target. And then wrecks is yours. There is 2 ways to make it good. Totally remove ownership, or give PROPER ownership of a wreck.
àand of course, the third way: communicate the ownership properly ù you own the loot, not the wreck. So far, no-one has come up with a good suggestion for how to do this.
(Well, except for the fourth way of course, which is what we have now: ownership of the loot is first displayed on the wreck and is then transferred to the can when the wreck is removed. Personally, I think it works well enough, but apparently some find it confusingà)
The problem with your two ways is that they change the reward structures for killing ships. Totally removing ownership reduces the rewards; complete ownership increases them. Both of those would require arguments for why you need to either nerf or buff NPC-killing.
Quote: Why FFS loot inside is yours and salvage not ?
Because the loot is your reward for killing the ship whereas the salvage is not ù the salvage is the reward for salvaging the wreck.
Quote: Anyway what is the diffrence between salvage and loot, on both you have to spent some time and skill so why WE missioners are giving our JOB just like that for free to ninja salvager.
The difference is that they're not the same activity: you don't need to be a salvager to be a mission runner and you don't need to be a mission runner to be a salvager. They have completely different skill sets. They utilise completely different sets of ships and equipment. And they give completely different sets of rewards.
The problem here is that you think both are the same just because you're doing both at once. That's a bit like saying that ship manufacturing and mission-running is the same because you can do both at once, or like saying that trade and piracy is the same becauseà wait, that one's a bad example.
Quote: Someone said "becuase its a floating garbage" ...NO ITS NOT its my JOB my kill and WRECK should be MINE or should be accesible for everyone. Dont you get it ?
Yes, it's your job to kill. For that job you get bounties and the spoils (loot). But as a killer, it is not your job to clean up the mess ù that's the job of salvagers. If you want to do that job as well you have to compete with other salvagers, because that's part of the salvaging business. ùùù ôIf you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡à you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.ö ù Karath Piki |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
|
Posted - 2011.04.25 13:50:00 -
[63]
Originally by: HeIIfire11 And no one would care if you tractor beam trash would they? Go ahead and try then tell me what you got.
Tippia should go try this as well
I have already answered this. ùùù ôIf you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡à you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.ö ù Karath Piki |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
|
Posted - 2011.04.25 14:36:00 -
[64]
Edited by: Tippia on 25/04/2011 14:38:41
Originally by: HeIIfire11 "The small tractor beam cannot engage a tractor beam on that object as it is not owned by you,a fellow fleet member or anothermember of a player corp you belong to".
Yes, because you're trying to tractor an object (a loot can) that doesn't belong to you.
So the question remains: if you see the confusion as the issue that needs solving, how do you propose to fix that issue? How do you propose to communicate the ownership of the loot without displaying it on the wreck? ùùù ôIf you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡à you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.ö ù Karath Piki |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
|
Posted - 2011.04.25 14:43:00 -
[65]
Originally by: HeIIfire11 No,it was an empty wreck.
àwhich still contains a can that doesn't belong to you.
So the question remains: if you see the confusion as the issue that needs solving, how do you propose to fix that issue? How do you propose to communicate the ownership of the loot without displaying it on the wreck? ùùù ôIf you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡à you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.ö ù Karath Piki |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
|
Posted - 2011.04.25 14:47:00 -
[66]
Originally by: HeIIfire11 Either turn the wreck blue
That works for empty wrecks. How do you handle it with non-empty ones?
Quote: flag the salvager like I said one hundred times in this thread already.
Why should mission-runners have their income increased and have stuff given to them without any additional effort? ùùù ôIf you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡à you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.ö ù Karath Piki |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
|
Posted - 2011.04.25 14:59:00 -
[67]
Edited by: Tippia on 25/04/2011 15:02:08
Originally by: HeIIfire11 Unlooted wreck remains the same.
àand you don't think that the (supposed) confusion will remain exactly the same then, or even increase? After all, the wreck still has a name on it, even though it's free for all. It will just keep the same confusion we have now and add the confused notion that while there's loot left, the wreck is theirs and that anyone salvaging it is "stealing".
So that doesn't really solve the confusion because the source of the confusion remains, as does the question: how do you handle non-empty wrecks to remove the confusion?
Quote: Been there...done that
You never answered it, though. So why should mission-runners have their income increased and have stuff given to them without any additional effort? ùùù ôIf you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡à you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.ö ù Karath Piki |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
|
Posted - 2011.04.25 15:10:00 -
[68]
Edited by: Tippia on 25/04/2011 15:13:52
Originally by: HeIIfire11 Change the name or make yellow wrecks so that you cant salvage them unless you belong to the corp.
Could you elaborate on the name-changing? What do you mean?
As for making them non-salvageable, that just turns them into an even stronger version of owned objects, which means we're back to the question of why mission-runners should have their income increased.
Quote: Garbage to me is stuff people trow away. Not stuff I plan to use but havn't gotten to it yet.
The problem is that salvage is something that salvagers collect in competition with other salvagers. By making it owned (or even worse, unretrievable by competitors), you've removed that competitive element. If you haven't gotten to it yet, then maybe you should get on with it right nowà it's a race to get it first, after all.
Quote: Why not?
àis not a reason why and is trivially dismissed by "Because there's no reason for it." ùùù ôIf you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡à you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.ö ù Karath Piki |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
|
Posted - 2011.04.25 15:17:00 -
[69]
Originally by: HeIIfire11 Question remains..why not?
Because there's no reason for it. ùùù ôIf you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡à you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.ö ù Karath Piki |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
|
Posted - 2011.04.25 15:31:00 -
[70]
Originally by: HeIIfire11 It's a game there's no reason for a lot of things.
Maybe. But you're the one who wants to see a change to the game, so you're the one who has to provide a reason for why it should change. ùùù ôIf you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡à you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.ö ù Karath Piki |
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
|
Posted - 2011.04.25 16:11:00 -
[71]
Originally by: HeIIfire11 I never said I want to change a thing.
Yes you did. Most notablyà Originally by: HeIIfire11
Originally by: Tippia What do you want changed?
I want the salvager flagged.I want him to risk losing his ship just like the mission runner does
As it happens, what this change boils down to is an increase in mission-runner income, which means you want to change that as well. Also, you keep banging on about this supposed bad game design. One would hope that you'd want to see it fixedà
Quote: I was stating my opinion and presented evidence that what they intend salvaging to be and what it is are two different things.
Your evidence is lacking. They intended salvage to be a mini-profession where you find wrecks and extract salvage from them. That's what it is. It could certainly be buffed to provide easier access to those wrecks, but at the same time, you're arguing that the opposite should happen.
Quote: Like I said before,I can call you a lot of things but not stupid.
You've called me stupid plenty of time in this thread. Ad hominems only hurt your argument though. so you're free to keep doing it.
Originally by: HeIIfire11 Lame or not he gets on my nerves.
Yes. Do you want to know why? Because I push you to actually elaborate on your thoughts, state your case, present arguments for your case, explain what it is you want and why you want it, and explain why it would be beneficial to do it that way.
I'm dragging you, kicking and screaming, along the process of creating a fully featured, presentable suggestion for the betterment of the game. It requires a lot of thought and is a tough process, but in the end, it actually generates results. This is a good thing. ùùù ôIf you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡à you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.ö ù Karath Piki |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
|
Posted - 2011.04.25 16:17:00 -
[72]
Originally by: HeIIfire11 News flash!! Eve is far from perfect and this is one of those things that cause that.
So let's figure out a good way of fixing that thenà ùùù ôIf you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡à you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.ö ù Karath Piki |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
|
Posted - 2011.04.25 16:21:00 -
[73]
Edited by: Tippia on 25/04/2011 16:22:54
Originally by: HeIIfire11 This is what I have been trying from the start and have since then proposed a number of fixes all of which you have declined.
àbecause you haven't considered the consequences and/or failed to argue why they are good (or needed). You are also arguing for two diametrically opposed things at once. ùùù ôIf you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡à you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.ö ù Karath Piki |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
|
Posted - 2011.04.25 16:40:00 -
[74]
Edited by: Tippia on 25/04/2011 16:42:00
Originally by: HeIIfire11 everyone agrees that salvage is worth as good as nothing now a days. So this shouldn't be the thing to put a halt to the discussion of this topic.
Maybe, but it still represents an increase in mission rewards. Why is that needed? It also completely gut-shots an entire (mini)profession. Why is that needed (or, indeed, even remotely a good thing)?
Also, claiming that salvage isn't worth much raises the question of, if it isn't, why are mission-runners so adamant that it absolutely must be theirs?
Quote: where is the huge buff?
It doesn't have to be all that huge, but it's there none the less. Moreover, it goes against the pattern of what you consider a series of (effectively) nerfs ù does it really make sense to counter-act those (and sacrificing a completely different profession in the process)?
Quote: And just what would flagging the salvager change?
As mentioned, it would increase mission rewards and kill the salvaging profession. It would also most likely create a lot more dead mission-runners.
It also wouldn't really fix what you see as design flaws in the salvaging profession ù the reason you apparently got into this thread to begin with. To fix that, you'd have to make wrecks scannable, whether in missions or not; you'd have to auto-blue empty wrecks; and you'd have to somehow mark loot separately from the wreck (the idea of dropping a separate loot cans creates a lot more junk for the server to track, so I doubt they'll like that idea). ùùù ôIf you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡à you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.ö ù Karath Piki |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
|
Posted - 2011.04.25 17:39:00 -
[75]
Edited by: Tippia on 25/04/2011 17:39:52
Originally by: HeIIfire11 It isn't needed but nor does it gut-shot an entire profession.
Well if it's not neededà
And I do believe it nukes the salvager profession ù it already has its competitive component built in. The problem is rather that mission-runners try to engage in that competition in sub-optimal ships and fits (hence the "how am I supposed to beat a small frigate?" complaint) because they try to combine it with mission-running.
Quote: It would however give those who want to risk it a shot.
But that would also mean drastically changing the equipment and skill requirements for the salvagers. If mission-runners want to "risk it", they can already do so by going to lowsec. Or they can do it by flying more salvaging-friendly ships (but that would rather increase the risk of the mission than of the salvaging bit).
Quote: I belong to the bunch that doesn't like the grief attempt and would like to blast the salvager and take my chances.
Salvaging isn't griefing, though. It's a legitimate profession, and you might as well argue that the salvagers should be given the choice to attack the mission runners because they are the griefers trying to "steal" the salvager's rewards.
Quote: And you wouldn't be sacrificing another profession because like i said the risk of being setup wouldn't change.
Giving the other party a right to kill you ù a right they currently do not have ù doesn't change the risk?! Eeehhhrrmmà right. I'm going to have to vehemently disagree with that one.
Quote: So the salvagers would be able to continue salvaging with a slightly higher risk. As it stands now the salvager has as good as no risk.
He has the same risk as his competition: he risks having wasted the time to find those wrecks by being beaten to the punch. Why does the risk have to be higher than that, especially considering how small the rewards are? Compare this to the (almost equally) negligible risks of mission-running and the much higher rewards that activity hasà ùùù ôIf you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡à you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.ö ù Karath Piki |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
|
Posted - 2011.04.25 21:39:00 -
[76]
Originally by: Skex Relbore Salvage is spoils of war
No. If you want to go the RP route, the loot (or "prize") is the spoils of war, and guess what: the loot is yours. Savage, on the other hand, is the left-overs (in this case some kind of space-flotsam or lagan), and they actually belong to the original owner (in this case the rats)à but since we have no NPC market orders for salvaged parts ù i.e. they are not interested in recovering the stuff ù ownership falls on the salvager, who can be anyone who passes buy to pick the stuff up.
Moreover, if you want to go the RP route, CONCORD has authorised a charter where they will pay a bounty for criminals destroyed and as part of that charter, you are given the rights to the prize ù the loot ù which you are then authorized to defend with deadly force. This carter does not include the salvage (which, again, is a different category of property).
Quote: However Ninja Salvaging is theft I don't give a crap what CCP says
Ok. You are a griefer, a RMTer and hacker, and I don't give a crap what CCP says on those topics either ù you should be banned. Deal?
Quote: The wrecks generated by the mission runner are spoils of war just like the modules and ammo left inside the wreck.
That actually goes contrary to the definition of both those terms, so no.
Quote: Unfortunately rather than doing the rational thing and having salvage flag for aggression like any other theft
Why would that be rational, seeing as, by very definition, salvage only ever belongs to the original owner of the ship or to the person who recovered the salvage, should the original owner say so?
Quote: CCP has chosen to leave that protection intact allowing the Ninja to operate with impunity and the full weight of Concord protection.
Fortunately, all salvagers operate under the same protection (because no NPC faction is actually interested in reclaiming salvage that is rightfully theirs), so it becomes a race as to who gets it first.
Quote: If salvaging flagged for aggression it would be much more consistent with the rest of EVE's mechanics.
How so? You can't claim asteroids. You can't claim archaeology or hacking cans. You can kind of claim moons, but it's not illegal to take them away from the kind-of-owners. You certainly can't claim planets. You can't claim complexes. You can't really claim any source of basic materials in this gameà so how would claiming the right to salvage be consistent with that?
You assert you claim over salvage by creating it ù by salvaging the wreck. It is then yours, and people who steal your salvage get flagged. In fact, people stealing your salvage will most likely give you kill rights on them. ùùù ôIf you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡à you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.ö ù Karath Piki |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
|
Posted - 2011.04.27 02:27:00 -
[77]
Originally by: Skex Relbore No one argues about the ownership of the loot or the consequence of taking it because that makes sense at a basic level.
Actually, there's nothing particularly logical about loot ownership either. Why should it be yours?
The reason it's yours is simply because it's part of the reward for killing the ship.
Quote: Salvage on the other hand runs completely counter to what is logical and rational.
Salvage follows the exact same kind of logic: it's yours because it's the reward for salvaging the ship.
If you find it unintuitive that you get rewarded for what you do, then maybe the loot should be free for all as wellà ùùù ôIf you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡à you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.ö ù Karath Piki |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
|
Posted - 2011.04.27 03:17:00 -
[78]
Originally by: Skex Relbore You continue to ignore the fact that salvage can only exist as a result of a player destroying a ship.
No, I just find it 100% irrelevant. The wreck wouldn't be there if it wasn't intended for salvagers to come and retrieve ù otherwise you'd still just have the can popping out like in the olden days.
Quote: If the loot is considered the property of the person who destroyed the rat by the authorities as a part of their compensation then there is no logical reason why the salvage shouldn't be considered part of that compensation as well.
Sure there is. Same authorities don't put any value into the salvage, and the compensation package only includes the prize portion, not the flotsam.
Quote: There is no actual rational argument in favor of the existing game mechanic
So you want salvage to be removed completely? Who benefits from that? ùùù ôIf you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡à you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.ö ù Karath Piki |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
|
Posted - 2011.04.27 04:31:00 -
[79]
Edited by: Tippia on 27/04/2011 04:33:44
Originally by: HeIIfire11 As far as the wreck ownership goes I believe this says it all.
àand that doesn't in the slightest change the fact that the salvage is meant for the salvager and that it's entirely legal ù not theft ù to salvage any wreck you can find.. Rather, that statement means that that the loot in the wreck is indeed intended for the mission-runner (because that loot is part of the mission rewards that he earns by doing the mission). What that change did was remove a way to "legally" gain ownership of stuff ù the loot ù that was intended for the MR.
Quote: If at some later point they decided to change this they should have changed the game design to reflect this choice.
Which again comes back to the question: how should they communicate the ownership of the loot without marking it on the wreck?
Killing the ship earns you the loot. Salvaging the wreck earns you the salvage.
Very simple.
Quote: I think its safe to believe that a GM knows it better than you.
And it's safe to say that actual game mechanics knows better than the GM: you can't remove stuff that anyone owns without triggering some kind of aggression; removing wrecks triggers nothing. ùùù ôIf you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡à you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.ö ù Karath Piki |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
|
Posted - 2011.04.27 04:38:00 -
[80]
Edited by: Tippia on 27/04/2011 04:38:52
Originally by: HeIIfire11 I said nothing about loot nor did the gm in that quote.
àactually, that's exactly what the GM was talking about because that's what the ownership flag on the wreck signifies. ùùù ôIf you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡à you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.ö ù Karath Piki |
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
|
Posted - 2011.04.27 04:45:00 -
[81]
Originally by: Hells Girl I'm going to read the words and accept the meaning they have...word for word. Simple as that.
And the simple meaning here is that the ownership flag on the wreck signifies who owns the loot. They changed that so that the mission-owner always owns the loot, rather than some nasty ebil mission gate-crasher.
No mind-reading needed: stealing loot = timer, because you actually take something someone else owns. Taking salvage = no timer, because you're not taking (or removing) something someone else owns. ùùù ôIf you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡à you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.ö ù Karath Piki |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
|
Posted - 2011.04.27 04:49:00 -
[82]
Originally by: HeIIfire11 If they want it like this then they should turn the wreck blue when looted and let the salvager tractor beam it and shoot it as well.
àwhich still leaves the question of how to handle non-empty wrecks. ùùù ôIf you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡à you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.ö ù Karath Piki |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
|
Posted - 2011.04.27 04:56:00 -
[83]
Originally by: HeIIfire11 leave them yellow.
But then the confusion remains the same as it is now. Unlessà Quote: Yellow wrecks cant be salvaged.
àbut then you buff mission rewards, which won't happen because that's not the purpose of wrecks. ùùù ôIf you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡à you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.ö ù Karath Piki |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
|
Posted - 2011.04.27 05:07:00 -
[84]
Originally by: HeIIfire11 For the sake of argument lets say we want to avoid buffing missions at all costs,which I think is dumb but thats my opinion,simply reduce the bounty on the rats to balance it out.
Or, why not leave salvage alone since there's nothing wrong with the salvaging profession¦, and simply add back some loot and/or increase the bounties or LP if mission-runners (for no good reason) feel they're falling behind the income curveà
Why is it so hard to accept the fact that wrecks were introduced for salvagers, not for mission-runners?
Quote: Or the pay and lp. Theres other ways to do balance it.
Reducing the LP is probably the last thing you'd want to do since it's a decent and functional ISK sink ù if anything, a larger part of the rewards should be shifted towards LP (regardless of any other changes).
¦ àor, if you absolutely want to go on about the "design flaws", fix those flaws so that the salvaging profession actually works in its entirety: mark wrecks properly (somehow) so it's clear the wrecks are free for all; auto-blue empty wrecks; invent a way to scan down wrecks. But realise that everything that fixes those supposed design flaws will be buffs to the free-roaming salvagers. ùùù ôIf you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡à you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.ö ù Karath Piki |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
|
Posted - 2011.04.27 05:14:00 -
[85]
Originally by: Xzar Fyrarr
Ohshtz. What is this???
All your fault is what it is! ùùù ôIf you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡à you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.ö ù Karath Piki |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
|
Posted - 2011.04.27 05:19:00 -
[86]
Originally by: HeIIfire11 It was never about the mission pay for me as I don't salvage anyway. The point the op was making is that its bad game design that also causes confusion. That much I think should be clear. And I have nothing against salvagers..yes,fix it (somehow)and let them do their thing.
Tbh, I think you're giving the OP too much credit when it comes to the cause and effect of that design and confusionà
àbut that's just me being mean and surly. ùùù ôIf you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡à you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.ö ù Karath Piki |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
|
Posted - 2011.04.27 05:24:00 -
[87]
Originally by: HeIIfire11
Originally by: Kara Sharalien Well that's nonsense. You've clearly never been to a magnetometric site. Who owns the stuff in the mag sites?
Good question,I've never been in one. What color is the wreck?
There is no wreckà (well, not in the normal sense anyway ù some of them have wreck models in the form of LCOs). ùùù ôIf you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡à you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.ö ù Karath Piki |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
|
Posted - 2011.04.27 05:26:00 -
[88]
Originally by: HeIIfire11 Running with his tail between his legs because he got flagged for stealing my stuffz if I had it my way
You haven't come across TEARS I take it? ùùù ôIf you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡à you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.ö ù Karath Piki |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
|
Posted - 2011.04.27 12:58:00 -
[89]
Originally by: HeIIfire11 Tippia is this your alt?
Don't be silly.
Quote: No it's not in line with anything.
Yes it is. Wrecks are free for all, which is in line with the design. Whether you can tractor them or not isn't really a factor ù partly because the design was made at a time when you wouldn't expect them to be tractorable, and partly because no other resource harvesting profession can tractor their sources either.
Quote: And it's not working just fine because no other profession in eve is protected by concord making it risk free.
Incorrect. All other professions are afforded the exact same protection.
Quote: No one is talking about buffing missions
Yes they are. They want to make salvage theirs without having to earn it in competition with other players. This means that, like loot, it becomes part of the mission rewards. This means that what they're asking for is a mission buff.
Quote: Again..a risk free profession is not very eve like either
It's not risk free, and it's not unique in the level of risk it has. So no. ùùù ôIf you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡à you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.ö ù Karath Piki |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
|
Posted - 2011.04.27 13:51:00 -
[90]
Originally by: HeIIfire11 No one seems to see that this mini profession is bugged but skex who understands exactly what I'm talking about.
No, I can certainly see that there are irregularities in the system, but the difference is rather that as I see it, fixing them will only ever work in the salvagers' favour ù otherwise they wouldn't really be fixes (and would just further contradict what CCP has stated). Also, I don't see much reason to fix it because these irregularities are so small and insignificant and because it's working just fine as it is.
Quote: One thing became clear is that so many people hate mission runners and I can't understand why.
People don't hate mission runners (wellà I don't hate myself, at least, if a sample of one is good enough for you). What people hate is greedy and overentitled mission runners who want to increase the rewards for what is already one of the most rewarding activities in highsec, and who want to do it for no good reason.
Hence all the "why:s" and "prove it" and "argue your case": because there is this vain hope that someone might have a good reason that doesn't boil down "I feel entitled to more stuff ù gimme!" And history has shown that starting out by calling salvaging "theft" is already a huge neon sign that this is what the poster actually meansà ùùù ôIf you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡à you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.ö ù Karath Piki |
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
|
Posted - 2011.04.27 13:59:00 -
[91]
Originally by: Skippermonkey Went though an accel gate that was at a beacon, and saw a red container... that was new to me, had been looted though. Somebody tell me what that container was?
:CCP:
I love that bug. ùùù ôIf you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡à you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.ö ù Karath Piki |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
|
Posted - 2011.04.27 14:28:00 -
[92]
Originally by: Skippermonkey SRSLY THOUGH
what was it?
Standard overview bug: the row that contains the wreck hasn't been properly cleared/initialised or some such, and still carries the flag that says "this is a hostile ship"à except that the hostile ship isn't there any more and a wreck (not even necessarily the wreck of the hostile ship) has taken its place. ùùù ôIf you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡à you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.ö ù Karath Piki |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
|
Posted - 2011.04.27 14:49:00 -
[93]
Originally by: Skippermonkey In beacon sites that you warp to, are there ever 'special' red cans with loot in that unlock when all teh rats are gone or something. I dont know, hacking? archaeology stuff? things that i havent realyl paid any attention to in eve
Ah yesà those. They're just standard cans that respawn their loot every now and then, which by the looks of it also happen to be marked as hostile for no apparent reason. ùùù ôIf you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡à you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.ö ù Karath Piki |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
|
Posted - 2011.04.27 18:33:00 -
[94]
Edited by: Tippia on 27/04/2011 18:35:37
Originally by: Ania Hyperthron Wreck is mine, without my standings and MY mission and MY kill this wreck will never exist.
Incorrect. Without salvagers there would be no wreck ù they would never have been put into the game, and they certainly weren't created for your benefit.
What you're saying is that it's not your mission, your standing, your kill ù it belongs to the miner who created the minerals. The wreck is not yours. The salvage isn't yours. You are just another part of the chain. Live with it, because that's EVE.
Want the salvage? Then you have to earn it, just like the ninja did. ùùù ôIf you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡à you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.ö ù Karath Piki |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
|
Posted - 2011.04.27 19:48:00 -
[95]
Originally by: Jayson Lee The idea that CCP intended to creat a mini profession rings hollow to me. Things may have changed since I have been gone, but at the time, wasnt the only thing added for a salvager, was the salvage laser and skill?
No. they added wrecks for them as well. And the idea that CCP intended to create a mini-profession comes from CCP themselves ù it doesn't really get more non-hollow than that.
Quote: I mean we just got a true salvage ship not long ago. If CCP wanted to create a salvager profession, shouldnt there be more skills, more mods, and a ship released with this profession?
Not really, no. It's no different from the other mini-professions (archaeology and hacking).
Quote: I am on the side that thinks this is not what CCP had in mind and they simply dont want to put the effort into changing it.
The historical record does not agree with you. ùùù ôIf you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡à you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.ö ù Karath Piki |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
|
Posted - 2011.04.28 15:57:00 -
[96]
Edited by: Tippia on 28/04/2011 16:04:49
Originally by: HeIIfire11 So no...there is no can inside the wreck that belongs to the player...it's the wreck itself thats owned by the mission runner.
You know what? Fine. Let's say that it belongs to the mission runner (in spite of the fact that the game mechanics prove otherwise). So what?
It doesn't matter in the slightest. It's still free for anyone to salvage and the salvage still doesn't belong to the mission runner, and calling it "theft" is idiotic because nothing is actually stolen. Saying that the wreck isn't owned, but that the can is, explains the game mechanics in full; trying to skew it any other way is inconsistent with game behaviour. If nothing else, it's a very handy short-form for an evolutionary history of the mechanics that lets the MR explain what's his and what isn't.
So why are you trying to confuse the poor players?
Quote: The current game mechanics do not reflect the intended design.
You mean apart from the indisputable fact that the wreck is obvious free for all to salvage, which reflects the intended design?
Quote: I also dont think a two week old noob in a T1 frigate should be earning 10-15 million per hour.
Good news: he won't. He will not have the skills or the skillz or the equipment to do so. ùùù ôIf you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡à you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.ö ù Karath Piki |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
|
Posted - 2011.04.28 18:52:00 -
[97]
Originally by: Jayson Lee Im curious as to your take on why the loot is seperate from salvage components? To me they both fit the bill as salvage, why is one the owner of the MR and not the rig components?
Depends on what you mean by "why?" I'm talking about it from the perspective of professions and activity rewards.
The loot belongs to the mission runner because back when they designed the concept of missions and what they'd do, gameplay-wise, it came down to this: you (don't really) risk your ship and expend some ammo to blow up rats and occasionally collect some trigger item, and in exchange, you get a set of rewards ù ISK, time bonuses, status increases, LP, bounties, loot. The loot part caused some problems because it was possible for other people to come in and shoot the rats and thus gain ownership of loot that was intended to be part of the MR's reward package.
Then they added a different and separate activity: salvaging. The design concept was that you'd spend time to hunt down wrecks and salvage them in competition with other players who'd presumably be after the same thing, in exchange one specific kind of reward: salvage.
The two are separate because the activities, skill set, equipment, interactivity, andà wellà pretty much everything is different. Loot is different from salvage in the same way that ore is different from PI. You do different things, and it yields different stuff as rewards. Just because you can do both at once doesn't mean they're the same (otherwise, trading would be the same thing as invention because you can do both at once, and traders would be rightfully upset when you booked up all the invention slots in the regionà never mind that there isn't a single skill that connects those two activities and that traders don't use invention slots for anything).
Quote: Why not seperate the loot can from the wreck?
More junk in space for the server to handle; requires multiple spawns for each dead ship; it seemed logical that the the loot would be in/attached to the wreck?
Quote: Why not allowing towing of the wreck by anyone?
Because they chose to contain the loot inside the wreck, and they didn't want others to deal with the problem of ninja tractoring?
Quote: I guess it just doesnt make any sense to me why the guns and other mods are yours, but the salvage isnt.
You've earned one, but not the other, because they're rewards for completely different activities.
Quote: As for balance, I think you need to remove wrecks from the missions. Make it a seperate scanable item, kinda like exploration.
Sure, they could massively buff mag sites, I supposeà ùùù ôIf you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡à you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.ö ù Karath Piki |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
|
Posted - 2011.04.28 19:28:00 -
[98]
Originally by: Zyress Contracts are typically a much better deal than the LP store
Depends what you're selling (and see the edit I did above ù I managed to mangle that sentence completelyà ). It requires a tiny amount of research, but I have yet to come across a mission where the LP wasn't worth more than the salvage on top of the fact that you didn't have to expend a single extra second to acquire them.
Once you get your mission speeds up, the time it takes to salvage (unless you do it on the go, and only pick the most opportune wrecks) can easily be worth at least twice that if you simply move on to the next mission and earn more LP, more rewards and bonuses and more bounty. ùùù ôIf you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡à you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.ö ù Karath Piki |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
|
Posted - 2011.04.28 19:47:00 -
[99]
Originally by: Jayson Lee If this was the desing concept why not seperate them out from MR? I read the posts you linked and I never got the impression that they intended to make this a compitition bewteen players to salvage someone elses mission.
The competition part comes inherent with it being a resource extraction kind of activity (and, I'd argue, inherent with being EVE). As for separating it from missionsà well, they wanted it to be ship wrecks for some reason, and missions just so happen to involve the destructions of lots of ships. Yes, there are also mag sites, but those aren't really about going after wrecks.
Quote: Really? Ore and PI are found in completely different areas arent they?
Yes, but the point is: you use completely different skill sets (and skillz sets) and different equipment to gain access to completely different resources. This mirrors how you use completely different skills (and skillz) and equipment to gain access to the different rewards that missions and salvaging provide.
Quote: It seems more logical that they had intended for the MR to be the one to salvage the wrecks, not a 3rd party.
It's logical in the sense that mission runners could also be salvagers, but they're still engaging in a separate activity that is subject to its own rules and reward structures (most notably being open to competition).
Quote: Or they never intended to have ninja salvagers, that seems more likely.
Not really, since the whole point was to go around and search for wrecks, not create them yourself. The default way would be to "ninja" wrecks, but being a "self-sustaining" salvager is something that the system allows for as well as a direct result of the salvaging profession not caring one whit where the wrecks actually come from.
Quote: Why havent I earned the right to all salvage?
Because you earn your right to salvage by engaging in the Salvager (mini)profession: by beating the competition and being the first person to salvage the wreck. Simply spawning the wreck isn't enough because that's not part of the profession (and already comes with its own reward structure anyway).
Quote: Can you explain why we earn one and not the other?
Because they're separate activities with separate reward structures: killing rat → earn bounty and/or loot. Salvage wreck → earn salvage. One requires guns; the other requires a salvaging module. There are no cross-over requirements. ùùù ôIf you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡à you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.ö ù Karath Piki |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
|
Posted - 2011.04.28 20:50:00 -
[100]
Edited by: Tippia on 28/04/2011 20:51:18
Originally by: Jayson Lee I see where you are coming from, but I havent seen anything that suggests that this is what CCP had intended.
You mean apart from them saying exactly that from day one?
Quote: True, salvage needs an additional module, but where does that suddenly mean that it no longer belongs to the person who created the wreck.
Because creating the wreck has nothing to do with creating the salvage.
Quote: And, once again, why treat loot seperate from salvage?
Because they're different things ù they do different things; you get them in different ways; they have different professions attached to them.
Quote: Im sorry but when you look at everything as a whole, the most simple and logical solution is that CCP intended for people to salvage their own wrecks.
àexcept that they've quite clearly stated that this is not the case.
Originally by: Dirael Papier A ship can't drop both when it's destroyed, but it will always drop something (Either loot or a wreck.)
This will quite significantly nerf the salvaging profession and would require a complete rebalancing of rigs. ùùù ôIf you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡à you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.ö ù Karath Piki |
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
|
Posted - 2011.04.28 22:36:00 -
[101]
Originally by: HeIIfire11 And on the fourth day ccp said let ther be marauders...
àwhich are excellent for collecting loot ù one of the mission rewards. It's pretty poor for salvage work. ùùù ôIf you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡à you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.ö ù Karath Piki |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
|
Posted - 2011.04.29 13:26:00 -
[102]
Originally by: HeIIfire11 Old quote is old.
And still as valid until someone comes up with a good reason why L4s need to be buffed, and why they should be buffed at the expense of a different profession, rather than having their actual rewards boosted.
Quote: And yes lvl 4 could use a buff seeing as to how in null sec you fly titans instead of shuttles.
So there's not much reason to buff them then.
Quote: God forbid the mission runner gets 5-10 mill more per mission.
Why is that needed and why can't it be done by buffing the actual mission rewards? ùùù ôIf you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡à you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.ö ù Karath Piki |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
|
Posted - 2011.04.29 17:29:00 -
[103]
Edited by: Tippia on 29/04/2011 17:30:09
Originally by: HeIIfire11 I know what ccp wants and it's all good but then the game mechanics should reflect that choice.
They do.
Quote: the protection of concord on "my" wreck
For instance, I can remove your wreck without any kind of response from CONCORD ù they don't really protect it. ùùù ôIf you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡à you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.ö ù Karath Piki |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
|
Posted - 2011.04.29 17:37:00 -
[104]
Originally by: HeIIfire11 I bet you wont shoot at it though.
Of course not. That would destroy the loot can, which is yours.
Look, the only real confusion is that some people seem the believe that just because you do two things at they same time, they're the same thing, even though the mechanics quite clearly show that this is not the case. Education would solve that quite nicely.
The rest of it is just greed and baseless entitlement. ùùù ôIf you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡à you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.ö ù Karath Piki |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
|
Posted - 2011.04.29 18:15:00 -
[105]
Originally by: HeIIfire11 There is no loot can
Sure there is. It's the container that holds your loot. Remove the wreck and the can is exposed. Go up to the wreck, and it lets you access the can. Have you ever seen loot float around freely in space?
Quote: "This will replace the loot can"
àas the primary way of containing your loot, and moving or destroying that loot (which belongs to you) isn't allowed. The wreck, on the other hand, doesn't belong to you, which is why I can remove it (and expose the raw can) without any kind of CONCORD response.
You see, you're actively trying to confuse yourself by not admitting the very simple explanation ù one that is 100% consistent with the game mechanics ù that the wreck isn't owned, whereas the loot can contained in it is. The game isn't confusing. You are. And you can't really accuse the game for confusion you create for yourself.
The fact remains: the wreck isn't yours. The game mechanics are consistent with this fact. ùùù ôIf you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡à you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.ö ù Karath Piki |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
|
Posted - 2011.04.29 18:41:00 -
[106]
Edited by: Tippia on 29/04/2011 18:46:05
Originally by: Mortania You're creating a model that fits your definition of what is occurring.
It's not really my definition ù it's a model of what's occurring that is in line with how the mechanics handle the different parts: a wreck that anyone can remove without ill effects; a can that can be stolen from because its contents are owned, and which is laid bare when the wreck is removed; and finally, the can is contained by the wreck, which is why you see your name on the wreck and why outright destroying it (which also destroys the owned can) generates a response.
While it may not happen like this in the code, the model explains the rules and the mechanics just fine ù any confusion that might arise is caused by disregarding the model.
Originally by: HeIIfire11 So you're just gonna ignore the quotes from ccp?
Well, you are, so why can't I? The wreck isn't yours, or you wouldn't be able to remove it without consequence. The salvage isn't yours because you haven't earned it. Salvage isn't meant to be a reward for the mission-runner. Salvaging isn't theft.
As a result of all of that, there is exactly zero reason to flag the salvager.
Oh, and you'll also note that I didn't ignore the quoteà
Quote: When you empty a can it goes poof and is gone. The wreck however stays.
So the wreck and the can are obviously not the same thingà
Quote: Even an empty wreck that stays there after looting it has my corp name and appears to be mine.
It "appears to be" yours because it has your name on ità It appears not to be yours because I can remove it without CONCORD interferenceà
Which appearance wins? ùùù ôIf you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡à you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.ö ù Karath Piki |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
|
Posted - 2011.04.29 19:09:00 -
[107]
Edited by: Tippia on 29/04/2011 19:16:32
Originally by: HeIIfire11
Originally by: Emperor Salazar (despite their ****ty ability to portray this in-game).
This is all I'm trying to prove or should I say have proven.
No, you're trying to prove more than that: that the wreck and the products made out of that wreck (the salvage) is owned by whomever made the wreck spawn.
Originally by: Jayson Lee Why doesnt this game mechanic suggest more than anything else who owns the wreck.
Because it is also possible to remove the wreck without getting CONCORDed and because the mechanic that would fix that little issue (which is easily explained anyway) wasn't put into the game until four years after wrecks had been introduced.
Originally by: Mortania But it doesn't have to contain loot for the response, right? Your model doesn't explain the entire situation.
Yes it does. The wreck still contains the (owned) can.
Quote: Additionally, there's the name on the empty wreck that isn't explained by your model either.
Yes: the wreck contains the (owned) can.
Quote: What I'm saying is that no simple model (the wreck is everyone's, there's a can in the wrecks) that has been put forth that explains what's happening.
Sure it does: the wreck contains the can. You can remove the wreck without issue, and that reveals the raw can (if it's empty, it implodes at this point). You cannot shoot or tractor the wreck because you'd destroy or move the (owned) can.
Quote: It's not GREED that is driving an ask for a change, but CLARITY.
Greed has motivated every salvaging thread so far, and if you look at what they're suggesting it seems to motivate them as well: they do not want clarity (which would mean that salvagers have an even easier time) but rather that the mission-runner gets his rewards increased.
If it was clarity they were after, the words "stealing", "theft" and "flagging" would never appearà ùùù ôIf you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡à you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.ö ù Karath Piki |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
|
Posted - 2011.04.29 19:31:00 -
[108]
Originally by: Jayson Lee You can do alot of things to avoid concord.
Not really. You can do things to not trigger CONCORD; avoiding them is bannable.
Quote: To clairfy though, if I create the wreck I, my corp, or my group can destroy it? No one else can do this, correct?
Not destroy it, no. But anyone can remove it.
Quote: I take issue with this, if its greed that drove everyone they would ignore salvage.
You'd think so, yes, but what else would you call the motivation to further increase the already large rewards of one of the easiest, most risk-free ways of earning ISK and removing the extra effort required for those rewards? ùùù ôIf you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡à you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.ö ù Karath Piki |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
|
Posted - 2011.04.29 21:17:00 -
[109]
Originally by: Jayson Lee Not really, I avoid concord all the time, I chose not to **** them off.
You're not avoiding them, then.
Quote: Is there anything else like this in eve.
Nope.
Quote: This would only make sense if the MR got the rewards automatically after the mission.
It makes sense regardless: the loot is very specifically his, which is why taking it counts as "stealing" and why they changed it so that all NPC loot in a mission belongs to the mission-runner, rather than follow the normal rules for loot ownership. If he chooses to leave it behind, that's his problem.
Quote: You still have to change ships and do the work
Changing ships isn't really necessary, no, but yes, you have to collect the loot. It's still yours, though, and you don't have to do any extra work to own it since it's part of the mission reward structure.
Quote: so its not an extra reward.
The loot isn't, no. The salvage isn't really an extra reward either ù it's the standard (and only) reward for salvaging, and in relation to running the mission, it's neither "extra" nor "a reward."
Quote: Its easy to see how someone gets confused.
The only part that is remotely confusing is the name on the wrecks, but again: how else are they going to communicate the ownership of the loot?
Originally by: HeIIfire11 You keep going on about this can when the blog on the introduction of wrecks which you brought into this discussion clearly states that said cans were REPLACED by wrecks. So ccp is wrong and you're right?
No. The model is right and CCP is right. That's the whole point of the model. As for the bad game design: how else would they communicate the ownership of the loot?
Quote: And to clear things up I'm not after a mission buff
Funny that, seeing as how you're arguing for one. ùùù ôIf you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡à you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.ö ù Karath Piki |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
|
Posted - 2011.04.29 21:36:00 -
[110]
Originally by: HeIIfire11 No I'm not.
Yes you are ù you want to make the salvage owned by the mission runner and flag any competing salvager. This means you're asking them to increase the scope of the rewards of missions.
Quote: And about the can..you say there is one and ccp says there isn't.
No. The model says there is, which is consistent with the mechanics and the way CCP describes who owns what. ùùù ôIf you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡à you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.ö ù Karath Piki |
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
|
Posted - 2011.04.29 22:05:00 -
[111]
Originally by: Jayson Lee And that doesnt raise any questions in your mind?
Nah. It's one of the few occasions where two professions are linked by the same resource: one has a by-product that the other uses as the source for its activities, that's all.
Quote: Even can flipping at least gets flagged, and im pretty sure CCP stance on that is you jettisoned, you must not want it.
Apparently not seeing as how you still own it after it's jettisoned. Maybe you're just sorting and house-cleaning.
Quote: Why do they flag something you purposely give up, but you have wrecks, that show ownership, is protected by concord and cant be towed by anyone but you?
Because it's not at all certain that you're giving it up, whereas you haven't even caimed the wrecks yet (so you haven't even had the chance to give them up).
Quote: If its not a reward, why do you claim if things are changed its a boost to MR?
It's not a reward for mission runners ù making it one means you've now given the mission runners an additional reward. This constitutes a boost.
Quote: The MR gets no extra reward, he basically changes his hat and becomes a salvager.
Exactly. And as a salvager, he has to compete with other salvagers ù it's part of the profession ù and has no special ownership over stuff he hasn't earned yet.
Quote: Salvaging doenst get nerfed at all. It just limits who can salvage where
Nice contradiction there. Limiting salvaging nerfs it.
Quote: That is not the only thing. Why does concord care if you blow up a wreck in my mission but i dont?
Because the wreck contains an owned object. ùùù ôIf you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡à you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.ö ù Karath Piki |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
|
Posted - 2011.04.29 22:12:00 -
[112]
Originally by: Mortania
Originally by: Tippia Because the wreck contains an owned object.
I thought looted wrecks still caused response, no?
Because, while empty, they still obviously have a container in them, and nuking this container is apparently a no-no.
(Also, mechanics-wise, wrecks were introduced four years before we got the ability to turn them blue, so while the obvious solution to that one would be to automatically blue any empty wreck, it's only obvious now, not when the wreck mechanic was originally implemented.) ùùù ôIf you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡à you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.ö ù Karath Piki |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
|
Posted - 2011.04.29 22:50:00 -
[113]
Originally by: Jayson Lee I more focused on the mechanics that appear to contradict themselves.
Not much to focus on, then. ùùù ôIf you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡à you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.ö ù Karath Piki |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
|
Posted - 2011.04.29 23:07:00 -
[114]
Originally by: HeIIfire11 Without your make pretend can you have nothing else to bring to the table.
Read what I wrote: it's a model. It explains why things work the way they work, and why this is in line with what CCP claims.
Quote: And this is where the argument goes in my favor.
In favour of what?
Quote: This is also where my point is proven and the bad game design in this mini profession comes in..thus causing the confusion.
What is the bad game design? The confusion is very easily dispelled by looking at the model.
Quote: So again..there is no can nor is there a reason for an empty wreck to appear as if it belongs to the mission runner.
Yes there is: the mechanic to work around this did not exist at the time. You are judging a five year old implementation in the light of something that was put into the game one year ago. This does not make it bad game design, no matter how much you wish it did.
Quote: It either does belong to the mission runner or its bad designed mini profession which was my point from page one.
àso how do you communicate the ownership of the loot, if not on the wreck? ùùù ôIf you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡à you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.ö ù Karath Piki |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
|
Posted - 2011.04.29 23:25:00 -
[115]
Originally by: Jayson Lee Why can I blow up wrecks and the ninja salvager cant?
Because the wreck contains an owned object.
Quote: loot or not, can anyone else shoot a wreck without concord responding?
No, because, loot or not, the wreck always contains an owned object.
Originally by: Mortania If this were true, when the loot is removed, or there is none, then there should be no ownership placed on the wreck.
Easy, requires no blue application
How so? ùùù ôIf you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡à you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.ö ù Karath Piki |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
|
Posted - 2011.04.29 23:41:00 -
[116]
Edited by: Tippia on 29/04/2011 23:44:37
Originally by: HeIIfire11 What model and what does it explain where other than in your mind?
This model, and it explains the mechanics and how/why they are in line with CCP's statements.
Quote: In favor of it being unfinished content,bad designed mini profession and the cause of confusion which leads to these countless threads over and over again.
How does replacing cans with wrecks make salvaging unfinished? How is it badly designed?
And again: how would you communicate the ownership of the loot if not on the wreck?
Quote: All I see is a wreck with my name on it restricted to me for all but salvage in my mission. As well as a dev blog where the introduction of wrecks says that they will replace said cans. Meaning they no longer exist.
àexcept that cans still exist and still contain the loot. They just don't appear in free space until you've removed the wreck (which you can do without a CONCORD response, which kind of speaks against the notion that you'd own the wreck ù CONCORD usually doesn't respond well to the removal of other people's stuff).
Quote: Exactly what is it that was introduced a year ago?
Wreck abandonment. This could have solved the problem of empty wrecks showing up with an ownership flag, but that solution wasn't available at the time (salvaging was introduced five years ago). so you can't claim that salvaging was unfinished just because that didn't happen.
Quote: proof of unfinished content just thrown out without changing the older content to accomidate the new profession.
And exactly what was thrown out, and what wasn't changed?
Quote: Sorry I don't get paid to figure that out.
No, but you can be constructive and think about how to actually solve the problems you perceive. I've offered one solution that can be "implemented" (although that's not really the right wordà "taught" is perhaps better), but you've rejected it.
Quote: Not to mention this is not relevant to the argument.
So potential solutions to the problems you see are not relevant to the discussion about those problemsà Riiightà
But perhaps most importantly: Quote: Not to mention this quote clearly stating that the wreck belongs to the mission runner.
So what? The ownership of the wreck is, in fact, 100% irrelevant.
Quote: You're not helping the confusion any buddy
No, you are not helping because you automatically reject the much more understandable word "can".
Originally by: Mortania Removal of tags on an object.
Was that possible at the time? ùùù ôIf you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡à you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.ö ù Karath Piki |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
|
Posted - 2011.04.30 00:41:00 -
[117]
Originally by: HeIIfire11 Alot was said there and you expect me to pull something out of there?
It was a very short post where it all gets started, and it's quite clear what I mean if you look for the word "model" in the responses to that one, actually, so yes, I kind of expected you to. But ok, you've all heard it before:
You don't actually own the wreck ù it's free for all to use and abuse. The wreck contains an (owned) can that holds the loot. If the wreck is empty, the (owned) can is still there. You can't shoot the wreck because you damage the owned can. You can't tractor the wreck, because you'd also move the owned can. You can salvage the wreck because it's free for all.
Quote: So at least you are admitting that cans were replaced..we are going places.
Not really, no, for the simple reason that I never disputed it. If by "going places" you mean "we stay where we already are", then yesà
Quote: What makes it unfinished is that the game does not show that the wreck belongs to no one as intended by ccp.
Which once again raises the question of how they should have done that?
An empty can contains no loot. Apart fromm the fact that they were replaced and no longer exist to begin with.
Quote: I can and do because they could have changed the old content while bringing in the new.
What is the old and new content you're referring to here?
Quote: And that is only a fix if the mission runner chooses to abandon the wreck and does so.
It's a fix if it happens automatically to empty wrecks.
Quote: Giving it up in free will not because the game design dictates it like it should to reflect the intended design.
I'm sorry, I don't quite understand what you're saying here so you'll have to correct me. I read this as ôauto-abandoning empty wrecks will not fix the ownership confusion because that would reflect the intended game designö (which obviously isn't the right interpretation since it doesn't make sense).
Quote: The sloppy unfinished content was thrown out there without changing the wrecks tag to reflect the intended game design.
Which again comes back to the question of: how should they have communicated loot ownership then? And how should they have handled empty wrecks?
Quote: I can teach you that the sky is green doesn't make it so.
Fortunately, that's not what I'm doing. I'm giving a model that explains why you can do the things you can do and can't do the things you can't do, and I'm trying to do it without going into the game design questions of who earns what from which profession because that just ends up confusing peopleà
Quote: Sorry no..thats what weve been arguing about for 18 pages. What belongs or appears to belong to who.
And in the end, the fact of the matter is that the flagging of the wreck is of exactly zero relevance to salvaging.
Quote:
Originally by: Mintala Arana The conflict between mission runner and ninja salvager is intentional.
Then why not flag the salvager and let the two go at it?
Because that's not the conflict they're going for and because that would boost the rewards of missions, which is definitely not what they're going for. ùùù ôIf you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡à you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.ö ù Karath Piki |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
|
Posted - 2011.04.30 00:54:00 -
[118]
Originally by: Tanya Tarajaka Which is a pretty useless game mechanic, designed to create conflict but also inhibits conflict at the same time.
Nah. It's quite aptly designed to create a certain kind of conflict: competition over resources in the form of a "who gets it first" race. It's much like mining, only with very small asteroinds.
Quote: Flag ninja salvagers as targets then conflict can actually commence rather than giving ninja salvagers a free ride.
The conflict is already there ù it's inherent in the design of the race. And considering the work the ninja has to do, to qualify for the race, it's hardly a free ride. ùùù ôIf you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡à you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.ö ù Karath Piki |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
|
Posted - 2011.04.30 01:12:00 -
[119]
Edited by: Tippia on 30/04/2011 01:12:36
Originally by: Tanya Tarajaka That's crap nothing like mining,
Sure it is. It's just that you've chosen to mine in a Raven, whereas the other guy has a Covetorà you've not really picked the right tool for the job (which is a rather unsurprising problem that comes with trying to do two things at once).
Quote: That's also crap, the conflict is somebody getting p***ed off because there's not too much they can do about it.
If they get that ****ed off, they can dec the guy or just blow him up regardless. Just because it's not a "pew-pew" conflict doesn't mean there's no conflict.
Quote: So, simple answer is to flag the ninja so that actual combat can take place.
It's not that simple, because that would increase the reward set for missions, and that wouldn't be goodà ùùù ôIf you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡à you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.ö ù Karath Piki |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
|
Posted - 2011.04.30 01:27:00 -
[120]
Originally by: Tanya Tarajaka Seems to me you you like it the way it is because you get a free meal ticket.
I do. Missions are about as "free meal ticket" as it gets, which is why I do them rather than (say) salvaging.
àok, not true: I salvage my missions as well to fill out the time and keep the books in order.
Quote: And until ninja salvagers are flagged they will always get a free meal ticket.
Seeing as how they have to work harder for the salvage than the mission-runner do, it's not really free. Nor is it really a meal ticket.
Originally by: HeIIfire11 Says you.
Says CCP. ùùù ôIf you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡à you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.ö ù Karath Piki |
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
|
Posted - 2011.04.30 01:44:00 -
[121]
Edited by: Tippia on 30/04/2011 01:45:38
Originally by: HeIIfire11 Right...two weeks of skill training and a 1 million isk ship (fit) and a few days learning to scan.
Yes. That's a few days more than the mission-runner needs.
Then there's the actual probing process, which is more work than rclick→warp to mission bookmark; dscanning the area and evaluating the hits (in relation to the ship(s) doing the mission), which is more work than sitting in the pocket and looking at the overview; travelling to each wreck and salvaging them, which is more work than sitting still and using tractorsà
Quote: Mission running takes way mor until you get to where we are.
Yes, mission-running requires a bit more than salvaging, but that's not what we're talking about ù this is about the work required to earn the salvage.
Quote: Refitting and killing all the rats is still more effort than a ninja will ever do I don't see it.
The mission-runner's effort to run the mission is compensated by the mission rewards. His effort to salvage the wrecks is compensated by the salvage, and that effort is much less than the ninja has to put in.
Quote: Not to mention the required standing.
Neither party needs any standing (beyond not being chased by the faction police) to salvage. ùùù ôIf you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡à you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.ö ù Karath Piki |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
|
Posted - 2011.04.30 02:22:00 -
[122]
Edited by: Tippia on 30/04/2011 02:25:31
Originally by: Tanya Tarajaka Put the important part in bold from your quote here.
The bolded part is spectacularly unimportant.
Quote: 80km tractor beams?
It's called the Noctis. It's quite neat.
Quote: And back to that important point you made, don't you think that someone who creates a wreak has a right to defend it.
Nah. They've already been paid for creating it, after allà
Originally by: HeIIfire11 I can't understand the way you think really.
It's very simple:
Mission-running is mission-running, and it gets rewarded with mission-running rewards (base ISK, time bonus, LP, standing, bounties, loot ownership). Salvaging is salvaging, and it gets rewarded with salvaging rewards (salvage).
A mission-runner who wants to earn the rewards of salvaging has to engage in salvaging. To do this, he has to train the skill, equip the module, trundle over to the wreck(s) (or a distance away, if he also trained for and equipped a tractor beam), and activate the Salvager module.
A ninja who wants to earn the rewards of salvaging also has to engage in salvaging. To do this, he has to train the skill, train the probing skills (multiple), learn how to probe (and dscan, to be effective), equip both salvager and probe launcher, probe out and evaluate a likely spot for good wrecks, travel there, trundle over to the wreck, and activate the Salvager module.
Comparing mission-running and salvaging is rather pointless, and if you want to argue the effort-vs-reward of various professions, that's a whole other topic.
Comparing a mission-runner and a ninja doing the same thing is something else, though, and as you can see from the lists above, the ninja is the one who has to do more work to earn the same stuff.
Quote: Make two alts..one to run all lvl 4 missions and one to ninja salvage and then come back and tell me who gets going first.
The salvager, obviously. But again: that's not the point ù the point is who has to work harder pursuing the same set of rewards, the mission-runner or the ninja. Obviously, it's the ninja.
Quote: And yes lvl 4 agents require quite a bit of standing.
àbut salvaging does not. For either party.
Quote: In order to even get the chance to profit from a lvl 4 including its salvage you need...
àand it's in the underlined word that you go astray. Just because the mission-runner needs more to run the mission (an effort he's rewarded for through the mission rewards, btw) doesn't mean he needs more to earn the salvage. So let's remove that part since it has nothing to do with the salvaging process, and then revisit your list:
Quote: 1.Start at lvl 1. Tools needed...a frig fully fit around 5 million isk.
2.move on to lvl 2. Tools needed...a destroyer fully fit around 10 million isk a frig fully fit around 5 million isk.
3.move on to lvl 3. Tools needed...a battlecruiser fully fit around 60 million isk a frig fully fit around 5 million isk.
4.move on to lvl 4. Tools needed...a fully fit and well skilled battleship costing around 200 million isk a frig fully fit around 5 million isk.
Fancy thatà
Quote: Now lets look at the salvagers career..lol do I even need to start?!
Let me: a frig fully fit around 5 million isk and salvaging skills (and skillz) and gear. That's more than the mission-runner needs for the same task.
Quote: Now who has it easier to get to that lvl salvage?
The mission-runner, because he already knows the location, because he knows the value of the site, and because he can tractor the wrecks. ùùù ôIf you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡à you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.ö ù Karath Piki |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
|
Posted - 2011.04.30 02:47:00 -
[123]
Originally by: Tanya Tarajaka You called it a race earlier, but a battleship can not compete against a destroyer for speed.
Well, that's what you get for picking the wrong tool for the job (which is hard to avoid if you try to do two things at once). Fortunately, you can transfer your advantages to another person who did bring the right tools and get the upper hand that way.
Quote: So this race of yours in a bit one sided in favour of the ninja.
It's one-sided for the person who has picked the right toolsà and rightfully so.
Originally by: HeIIfire11 Oh wait ..without the mission runner there is no lvl 4 salvage.
àand he gets paid for the service as well. ùùù ôIf you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡à you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.ö ù Karath Piki |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
|
Posted - 2011.04.30 03:06:00 -
[124]
Originally by: Tanya Tarajaka At least the mission runner earned his keep, where as the ninja salvagers are nothing but scavengers, protected scavengers at that.
Mehà the ninja still puts more effort into this salvaging than the mission-runner does, and provides just as useful a service to the game at large.
Quote: You should pay Concord a percentage of that isk from ninja scavenging, as a form of protection money.
They do, in a wayà ùùù ôIf you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡à you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.ö ù Karath Piki |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
|
Posted - 2011.04.30 03:11:00 -
[125]
Originally by: Tanya Tarajaka Ninja salvagers would do even a better service to the game if they could be legally shot at.
So you also think that mission deadspace should be locally downgraded to lowsec, I take it? ùùù ôIf you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡à you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.ö ù Karath Piki |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
|
Posted - 2011.04.30 03:16:00 -
[126]
Edited by: Tippia on 30/04/2011 03:16:21
Originally by: Mortania You can't honestly believe this.
Yes I can. See above for a comparison of what the two have to do.
Quote: Ninja salvagers can be salvaging in days, weeks at the outside.
àand mission runners can be salvaging in (much) less than that. ùùù ôIf you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡à you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.ö ù Karath Piki |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
|
Posted - 2011.04.30 03:25:00 -
[127]
Originally by: Tanya Tarajaka But, I do think ninja salvagers have got it too easy, with the backing of Concord (CCP).
àand yet they have it harder than MR-salvagers (who also have the backing of CCP, not to mention perks that the ninjas don't get).
Quote: Because at the moment you have ninja salvagers profitting from others peoples work and there's no real risk to them.
There's the same risk for them as there is for the MR-salvagers. So I take it you want to make it harder for them as well? Any suggestion as to how? ùùù ôIf you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡à you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.ö ù Karath Piki |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
|
Posted - 2011.04.30 03:49:00 -
[128]
Originally by: Tanya Tarajaka Only risk a ninja salvager has is if the mission runner has not cleared the section and they leave hoping the rats will target them.
That's one of the risks. A more important one is that there might be competition over the goods, and that the competition is properly equipped.
Originally by: Mortania I think I see the problem. You believe that just because a wreck CAN be salvaged by someone else that it must be equally easy for someone else to salvage.
No, I have quite clearly described how I do not believe this. You have probably just misinterpreted my description of how there is a difference in the effort as a veiled suggestion that there shouldn't be one. ùùù ôIf you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡à you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.ö ù Karath Piki |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
|
Posted - 2011.04.30 04:02:00 -
[129]
Originally by: Tanya Tarajaka Competition over the goods, 2 vultures instead of 1. So you might end up with less goods.
Yes. That's how pretty much all the resource competition in the game works. ùùù ôIf you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡à you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.ö ù Karath Piki |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
|
Posted - 2011.04.30 04:41:00 -
[130]
Originally by: Mortania Who gives a damn if a MR can salvager faster/easier than a ninja salvager?
Lots of people apparently, since one of the most common complaints is that ninja salvaging requires no work, which raises the question of how little work the MR has to do for the same rewards when engaged in the same activityà
Quote: The germane point is the risk/reward equation for a MR runner equivalent to the benefit they get for first possible dibs on salvage compared to a ninja salvager?
And seeing as how the risk for the mission-runner is nil (the risks of running the missions are counterbalanced by the mission rewards leaving him with a blank slate for the salvaging), the kind answer would be yes. The less kind answer would be "no, they get too many benefits", but without splitting the can and the wreck into two entities, it'll be hard to do anything about that (and they seem to be somewhat disinclined towards adding more stuff into space right now).
I suppose you could argue that these benefits are a good counter for the likely event that the MR will have to salvage using less than optimal equipment, but that only means that both the MR and the ninja face roughly the same risk.
Quote: You seem to be trying to conflate ninja salvage, a well described mini-profession, to equal status to a Level 4 mission runner, a full fledged profession.
Again, no. Quite the opposite: I'm being very clear about the fact that the two are separate activities with separate requirements and separate reward structures.
I am most certainly not saying that the two are equal ù I'm saying that they are not the same, in almost every way. That is why mission-running has higher requirements than salvaging and, consequently, why missions carry higher rewards than salvaging. The discussion of how different professions are balanced against each other is a different topic altogether (one where we'd have to discuss a lot of other professions, such as mining or trading or plexing or S&I or ratting orà well, all of them, really).
What I am doing is comparing mission runners who salvage with ninjas who salvage: two people engaged in the exact same activity and who are competing with each other for the available resources.
Quote: Alternatively, they could clearly communicate the lack of rights to empty wrecks to all involved parties, which seems messier and still leaves concord protected griefing still alive and irritating many people to satisfy very few.
Apart from the fact that it's not griefing, but a legitimate profession (mini or otherwise), yes, that would be the best way. The question remains, though: how. Most notably, how do you communicate the ownership of loot without marking it on the wreck (or how do you mark it on the wreck and still make it clear it only covers the loot). ùùù ôIf you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡à you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.ö ù Karath Piki |
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
|
Posted - 2011.04.30 05:38:00 -
[131]
Edited by: Tippia on 30/04/2011 05:40:52
Originally by: Mortania - Mission running has risks/rewards that are balanced by the rewards of the missions/loot themselves. - Salvage lies completely outside of that loop. - Everyone has equal rights to wrecks. - Creation of the wreck should provides no benefit other than potentially a first bite at the apple as well as more options for hunting down the wreck, assuming the ship configuration of the allows for such a thing for the wreck creator. - Thus, when it comes to salvage, everyone should have has equal risk/reward/rights.
Yes. The only "should" about it is that I think this is a good setup. ùùù ôIf you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡à you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.ö ù Karath Piki |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
|
Posted - 2011.04.30 14:45:00 -
[132]
Edited by: Tippia on 30/04/2011 14:48:48
Originally by: Tanya Tarajaka Problem is when it comes to the reality of point 5, not everyone has the same advantage when it comes to salvage. The ninja salvager has the advantage by far. There's nothing equal about it.
Any advantage the ninja salvager has is due to the mission runner giving them that advantage: they are trying to engage in the salvager profession with subpar equipment, whereas the ninja is not.
In such a situation, not only is it natural that the ninja will have an upper hand, it's good design that he has it. The inequality shows that it is working and that it's a reasonably even fight. Again, it's a competition ù a race for the resources ù and one of the competitors has chosen to run the race in wellies, whereas the other has actual running shoes. Why shouldn't that better choice give him an edge? Our wellies-man has a handy head start, but his equipment choice means he has squandered that advantage.
Quote: I know of people that have made it a full time profession, they made so much isk from it that one guy even started ninja salvaging level 4's in a Paladin (when Paladins were not cheap).
You should be happy, since he has chose to also run the race in wellies. The Palladin (indeed any battleship) is a horribly inefficient choice for ninja salvaging. Wellà maybe the Mach can see some use, but that only elevates it from "horrible" to "poor". ùùù ôIf you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡à you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.ö ù Karath Piki |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
|
Posted - 2011.04.30 15:05:00 -
[133]
Originally by: HeIIfire11 Not only do you try to make excuses there but now you're saying that it's good game design?
No, I'm not. Largely because I'm not talking about "it", by which you mean the wreck flagging, when I say that it's good design. But nice try twisting it.
I'm talking about the competitive element between salvagers ù it is well-designed and the inequalities that appear if you enter that competition with poor equipment is a testament to that. ùùù ôIf you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡à you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.ö ù Karath Piki |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
|
Posted - 2011.04.30 15:10:00 -
[134]
Originally by: HeIIfire11 Well "it" was the topic and nice try to you for trying to change that.
No, I'm not. Are you even trying any more?
I'm responding to Tanya Tarajaka's post, and both of them are on topic. ùùù ôIf you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡à you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.ö ù Karath Piki |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
|
Posted - 2011.04.30 15:19:00 -
[135]
Originally by: HeIIfire11 As far as I see it the case is clear.
Yes it is: salvaging is not stealing, and considering the amount of communication to that effect, there is almost no room for confusion.
Quote: And who has more risk or does more isn't the topic.
Sure it is. The OP himself brought it up. Just because you have chosen to pick up on the design part of the the larger discussion doesn't mean that it's the only part of the discussion. ùùù ôIf you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡à you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.ö ù Karath Piki |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
|
Posted - 2011.04.30 17:03:00 -
[136]
Originally by: Tanya Tarajaka Not at all, if you're killing rats in a level 4 and a ninja salvager shows up, you won't have time to run off to pick up your Noctis.
àand that's no-one's problem but yours: if you want to compete for the salvage, you need to pick your equipment better or you're just crippling yourself.
If you can't pick better equipment, then it's only fair that the ninja gets the salvage. ùùù ôIf you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡à you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.ö ù Karath Piki |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
|
Posted - 2011.04.30 17:12:00 -
[137]
Edited by: Tippia on 30/04/2011 17:12:28
Originally by: Tanya Tarajaka Interesting to note how you take bits out of quotes so as to take them out of context for your own purpose.
Interesting how the context didn't change in the subsequent sentence and how it would have made no difference for the answer:
If you have the wrong equipment, it's good and proper that competitors with the right equipment beat you. ùùù ôIf you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡à you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.ö ù Karath Piki |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
|
Posted - 2011.04.30 21:17:00 -
[138]
Originally by: HeIIfire11 They also shouldn't complain when people get ****ed about game mechanics that reflect the exact opposite of what they say their intentions are
àexcept that the mechanics reflact exactly what their intentions are: salvaging doesn't cause flagging. ùùù ôIf you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡à you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.ö ù Karath Piki |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
|
Posted - 2011.04.30 21:25:00 -
[139]
Originally by: HeIIfire11 There is no can nor is there a reason for an empty wrech to have the mission runners name on it.
Sure there is: technical limitations.
Quote: The contradicting posts and dev blogs don't help either.
àexcept that they don't contradict each other either. The (supposed) ownership of the wreck (which you know full well signifies the ownership of any loot that might be inside it) is 100% inconsequential to the fact that anyone can salvage those wrecks. ùùù ôIf you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡à you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.ö ù Karath Piki |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
|
Posted - 2011.04.30 21:34:00 -
[140]
Edited by: Tippia on 30/04/2011 21:35:44
Originally by: HeIIfire11 Just because you say so isn't good enough. Show proof of these technical limitations or get a "ccp" next to your name.
No. You prove it. You're the one making the assertion that there is no reason for leaving the name there. Prove it. Until then, your opinion is nothing more and couldn't be any further from the fact.
Quote: So there is your contradiction in black and white.
Where is the contradiction? He doesn't even mention salvaging, much less that the supposed wreck ownership is of any relevance as far as who can salvage the wreck. ùùù ôIf you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡à you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.ö ù Karath Piki |
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
|
Posted - 2011.04.30 21:47:00 -
[141]
Originally by: HeIIfire11 No you made the assumption they are technically limited
No, this is your assumption.
I'm saying that this is a possible reason for leaving the name there. The first on your list of things to prove. You made the assertion that there are none; you have to prove that assertion; you go off and find proof that the off-the-top-of-my-head suggestion that technical limitations is one possible reason is, in fact, not possible.
Originally by: Tosser Galore Of course a thief is a socially constructed entity as well as "crime" is "created" by criminalization, from the state. NO I'm not saying that the state induces crimes. But without criminal "flagging" from governmental bodies there is no crime.
It's a bit more than that though. It's not just that "the authorities" see ninja salvaging as a non-crime (i.e. it's not just an omission of criminalisation), but that they have very clearly legalised the activity. The act is as criminal as buying toothpaste with your honestly earned and properly taxed money from a legitimate toothpaste vendor. ùùù ôIf you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡à you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.ö ù Karath Piki |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
|
Posted - 2011.04.30 21:49:00 -
[142]
Edited by: Tippia on 30/04/2011 21:49:42 wowà double-post-snipe ùùù ôIf you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡à you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.ö ù Karath Piki |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
|
Posted - 2011.04.30 21:52:00 -
[143]
Originally by: HeIIfire11
Originally by: Tosser Galore . You can not expect (as the OP does), that CCP will hand over free game mechanics to protect high sec mission runners.
Yet ninja salvagers are given the free right and protection by concord
àand the mission runners are given the exact same right and protection. ùùù ôIf you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡à you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.ö ù Karath Piki |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
|
Posted - 2011.04.30 21:58:00 -
[144]
Originally by: HeIIfire11 If this came from ccp yes I would see it in my interest to prove it being false. But since it is nothing more than your ******ed logic I don't need to prove anything.
Then your claim is nothing but a worthless fantasy that you've dreamed up, and you need to stop spouting it as fact.
There are plenty of plausible reasons why empty wrecks must have player names on them. Your unfounded assumptions do not change this. ùùù ôIf you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡à you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.ö ù Karath Piki |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
|
Posted - 2011.04.30 22:08:00 -
[145]
Edited by: Tippia on 30/04/2011 22:13:25
Originally by: HeIIfire11 I have said all I have to say on this topic. Those that are capable of thinking for themselves
àwill have no problems deducing how things work and rid themselves of any supposed confusion about a very simple and straight-forward game mechanic.
àunless they're further confused by greed, which happens quite often as well.
Originally by: Tanya Tarajaka There's one big difference between roids and wreaks in missions. And that is if you've not noticed, a mission runner has to kill a rat for a wreak to exist whereas the mission runner does nothing for a roid to exist other than accepting the mission.
There is another big difference: the mission-runner gets paid to make that wreck appear; he does not get paid to make the asteroid appear (in fact, he gets paid to make it disappear). So if it's the difference in effort you're alluding to, that effort is compensated for as part of the system.
Beyond that, though, just everything else about the two entities makes them eminently comparable in terms of what function they serve. ùùù ôIf you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡à you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.ö ù Karath Piki |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
|
Posted - 2011.04.30 22:36:00 -
[146]
Originally by: 3up***ia Unless you're a figure of authority (CCP forum admins in this case), you don't get to tell people to shut up, sorry.
No, but I get to call him out on trying to make his fantasies appear as being even closely related to any kind of reality. ùùù ôIf you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡à you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.ö ù Karath Piki |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
|
Posted - 2011.05.01 15:28:00 -
[147]
Originally by: Tanya Tarajaka Making the wreak part of the kill so that if someone salvages one of your wreaks then they are then flagged for PvP can only be a good thing.
Quite incorrect. In can be a very bad thing due to the fact that it needlessly buffs one of the most reward-heavy and risk-less activities in the game; due to the fact that it needlessly nerfs an entire professions; due to the fact that it makes salvaging inconsistent with other resource collection professions (causing more confusion); due to the fact that the PvP element already exists; and due to the fact that it would entirely go against the purpose for introducing wrecks to begin with.
Why is it so hard to actually earn your rewards?
Quote: I hear so much about risk and reward on these forums.
àand that is why buffing missions is off the table. It won't happen. The risk is already nil; the rewards are already (far too) high. They don't need more. Ninja salvaging comes with risks built in ù you just adamantly refuse to acknowledge them (most likely because you're working from the disproved position that salvaging is part of mission running, rather than a competition between two parties).
Oh, and I'm category 4 as well.
Ninja salvagers are not a problem (much less the problem). ùùù ôIf you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡à you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.ö ù Karath Piki |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
|
Posted - 2011.05.01 23:09:00 -
[148]
Edited by: Tippia on 01/05/2011 23:12:48
Originally by: Tosser Galore There is NO risk since you are not being flagged, Using an alt, with expendable equipment. You risk nothing.
Yes you do: you risk not getting the stuff; wasting your time, just like the mission-runner. It's the same risk as with all competitive resource gathering.
Quote: From the other parts it's his ammo/time to train skills, ship cost/fittings that is being spent on the killing of npc.
None of which is of any relevance to the salvaging part of the equation. All those things are paid for and rewarded.
Quote: The risk vs reward ratio is skewed, when it comes to the competing parties.
Yes, it's a bit skewed in the mission-runner's favour since he's already on-site, rather than having to probe the site down and since he can use tractor beams, rather than having to travel to each and every wreck.
Quote: This would bring more pvp and make empire a less care bear free zone. [à] Why not auto flag when you enter someones dead space pocket in empire?
You know what else would do that? Making mission deadspace work like lowsec.
Quote: Why doesn't "mission runners" realize that they themselves can protect their wrecks by choosing to pvp the "whatever" that tries to salvage "your" wrecks (as they see it). Oh noes they can't because the ninja is being pr0tected by the insta gank squad.
They can protect the wrecks through PvP in the same way all salvagers can, and they have the same protection as all salvagers. It's about as balanced as it could ever be. ùùù ôIf you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡à you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.ö ù Karath Piki |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
|
Posted - 2011.05.02 08:19:00 -
[149]
Edited by: Tippia on 02/05/2011 08:25:12
Originally by: Tanya Tarajaka I've known ninja salvagers make more from a mission than the missioner, yet the ninja salvager does not have any risk at all.
Neither has the mission-runner ù L3s are even easier than L4s, and L4s are already largely risk-free.
If you're talking about L4s, then trust me: that mission-runner is doing it wrong.
Oh, and you just illustrated that there is a clear risk for the salvager already ù one that comes at no cost to the mission-runner if done right, to the point where one could even make a case for calling the mission-runners griefers considering the impact they can have on another player's activities and the negligible impact it would have on the mission-runnerà ùùù ôIf you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡à you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.ö ù Karath Piki |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
|
Posted - 2011.05.02 08:33:00 -
[150]
Originally by: Tanya Tarajaka So how is doing a mission right, in your opinion Tippia, you say a lot but what your say does not really mean much. So here's your chance.
Except for wrecks of opportunity (large wrecks that happen to be within tractor range), ignore the loot and salvage ù it only lowers your income.. Collect bounties according to taste and patience and balance the that against the time it takes to get the kill.
That's if you're doing it for the ISK.
If you're not doing it for the ISK, losing some salvage to the competition doesn't really matter anyway. ùùù ôIf you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡à you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.ö ù Karath Piki |
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
|
Posted - 2011.05.02 11:02:00 -
[151]
Originally by: Tanya Tarajaka Isk and standing
Then loot and salvage is your last priority (as in somewhere below checking your skill queue and monitoring contract trends), since they're not worth the time it takes to get them.
Quote: If I can tank the mission, i'll loot/salvage whilst killing the rats, I prefer it that way instead of having to go and pick up a dedicated salvage ship, even though I lose two high slots to the salvager and tractor beam.
If you can put weapons in those highslots instead, do that ù it'll pay better. And if you can't tank the mission, you're wasting your time as well, so it kind of goes without saying that you can do thatà
Quote: I use tactics that limit what a ninja can get from the missions I run
To my ears, that sounds an awful lot like "not doing things that result in the rats dying and/or completing the mission"à which mean you're losing out on income.
If you're blowing up wrecks, you're not blowing up rats. This is a waste of time, ISK and ammo, which again leads to the interesting contradiction: if you're going for the salvage, you're obviously not in it for the ISK, so it doesn't really matter if the ninjas manage to nab one every now and thenà ùùù ôIf you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡à you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.ö ù Karath Piki |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
|
Posted - 2011.05.02 18:10:00 -
[152]
Originally by: Mortania I've been doing some mild checking on it and in the two to three missions I checked on, melting the loot alone was about 8-9M in minerals. Which comes close to the value of the BS in the mission.
Well, if the battleship bounties of that mission comes out as just under 10M, I'd say that the mission itself is worth maybe one tenth of that, and about as much again in time bonus. I'd also estimate it to bring in LP worth another 8M (the value of standings is harder to calculate, but let's assume that you're way past the zero-tax stage and the rest becomes baked into the agent rewards).
The automatic rewards thus total somewhere around 20M, compared to 8û9M worth of loot, of which 10M is (semi)fixed and unavoidable ù no matter how quickly (or slowly) you do the mission, you get the same amount. That's where the magic happens.
Quote: If you aren't blitzing missions, and most people don't as I understand it, how long would it take to destroy double the amount of BS's?
But that's just it: if the loot is worth about as much as the BS bounties, it still only comes in as one third of the total rewards. You don't have to destroy the same amount of BS:s to make up for the lost loot ù you only have to destroy half the amount.
And that's before we get into the business of blitzing, where even destroying battleships will turn into an income loss: in the above example, you could probably get by by destroying only 1û2M worth of ships in 1/4 the timeà You'd miss out on was 6û7M of bounties, but you'd still get 12M or so worth of rewards: 60% the rewards for 25% the work.
Quote: Is the time getting your noctis and looting/salvaging more or less time than that? I suspect again, that except for your top mission runners, it's probably better to get your noctis on.
I'll admit that I'm not a good example ù I run in fast-travelling ships and I'm quite sedate when it comes to both the killing and the looting/salvaging ù but my experience is that it with something as molasses-like as the Noctis (even with an MWD), it takes about 50% as long to loot and salvage a mission as it does to run it, and travel time is a big killer for me. My experience is also that this extra 50% time does not translate into a 50% increase in income ù I'd put the number no higher than 30%, and I feel even that is being very generous.
àthen again, I'm in Caldari space, where both loot and salvage is worth fsck-all. ùùù ôIf you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡à you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.ö ù Karath Piki |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
|
Posted - 2011.05.02 19:08:00 -
[153]
Originally by: Mister Rocknrolla Yeah...the Noctis for a mission runner should take about 10% of the time to salvage as run a mission (if that). My Noctis has never had to move once in a room, due to the increased range and speed of the tractor. An advantage an interloper doesn't have.
Well, yes. The actual salvaging part is quick. What takes time with the Noctis is the travel: to and from stations, between gates, between rooms in the missions. Even with MWD-to-warp it doesn't react well to gates or multi-room missions.
But again, a lot of that perception, on my part, is probably due to the fact that I don't use battleships, so I'm not used to those long align times. ùùù ôIf you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡à you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.ö ù Karath Piki |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
|
Posted - 2011.05.02 20:27:00 -
[154]
Originally by: Whiteknight03 Step 1: Bookmark one wreck per room in a mission Step 2: Warp to base, turn in mission Step 3: Warp Noctis directly into each room without gates Step 4: ? ? ? Step 5: Profit! Still a waste of time.
It's not that it's difficult, it's that you still have to move the ship there, and with a slug like the Noctis, even with MWD-warp, this takes time.
Quote: It amazes me when people suggest flying the noctis through acceleration gates . . .
I don't think anyone has suggested thatà ùùù ôIf you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡à you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.ö ù Karath Piki |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
|
Posted - 2011.05.02 20:53:00 -
[155]
Originally by: Mortania You shouldn't need MWD, but rather as many nanos as you think you can short your cargohold with.
The MWD is there to cut down on the align time ù it does that far better than nanos can do, and does it in one (largely inconsequential) midslot, rather than sacrificing lowslots that could hold cargo expanders.
MWD = 10s align time. ùùù ôIf you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡à you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.ö ù Karath Piki |
|
|
|