Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 [13] 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 .. 25 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
|
Posted - 2011.04.25 21:39:00 -
[361]
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 |
ShahFluffers
Ice Fire Warriors
|
Posted - 2011.04.25 22:22:00 -
[362]
Edited by: ShahFluffers on 25/04/2011 22:22:31
Tippa... I need to buy you a drink. Seriously. For this thread you deserve one. _______________________
"Just because I seem like an idiot doesn't mean I am one." ~Unknown |
HeIIfire11
|
Posted - 2011.04.25 22:36:00 -
[363]
Originally by: ShahFluffers Edited by: ShahFluffers on 25/04/2011 22:22:31
Tippa... I need to buy you a drink. Seriously. For this thread you deserve one.
Really? You had to edit one sentence? Looks like you've had one too many already
How about answering to what I wrote about your last post.
|
Khanya Trace
|
Posted - 2011.04.25 22:37:00 -
[364]
lets meet in the middle! Wrecks have ownership, but only player ownership and not corporation ownership.
So the missioner and the salvager can fight for the right of salvaging as demanded in this thread. And then, for consistency purpose as demanded, loot in wrecks are not corp ownership either.
|
HeIIfire11
|
Posted - 2011.04.25 22:39:00 -
[365]
Originally by: Khanya Trace lets meet in the middle! Wrecks have ownership, but only player ownership and not corporation ownership.
So the missioner and the salvager can fight for the right of salvaging as demanded in this thread. And then, for consistency purpose as demanded, loot in wrecks are not corp ownership either.
I would have no problem with this at all. Now get CCP to do it and you're my hero.
|
Mortania
Minmatar No Compromise Gentlemen's Agreement
|
Posted - 2011.04.25 22:42:00 -
[366]
Yeah, that'd be fine by me as well.
|
Skex Relbore
Gallente Red Federation
|
Posted - 2011.04.27 02:10:00 -
[367]
Originally by: Tippia more nonsense rationalization of stupid game design.
Until the mission runner/ratter kills the NPC there is no opportunity for there to even be salvage this is the difference between salvage and all the other crap you mentioned. Roids do not require player activity to come into existence, Hacking cans and Archeology cans exist independently of player actions as do ICE fields and moons.
Now while the actual result of the salvage attempt isn't determined by the server until the actual act of salvaging takes place that doesn't change the fact that the salvage comes from a wreck that was created by the actions of the person who destroyed the ship. Conceptually that salvage exists the minute the ship is reduced to wreckage. After all the salvager doesn't magic those items out of the ether (not conceptually at least) salvage is the result of stripping useful circuitry and other materials out of the wreck itself. Conceptually this is no different than stripping the intact artillery piece or shield extender. I mean you don't really think the idea is that the crew of the vessel gathers up all the functional modules and stick them in the cargo hold the instant prior to their ship being shot out from under them do you?
There is no difference outside this poorly thought out game mechanic between salvaging a intact module from a wreck or a damaged armored plate.
This is why the subject creates so many endless threadnaughts. No one argues about the ownership of the loot or the consequence of taking it because that makes sense at a basic level. Salvage on the other hand runs completely counter to what is logical and rational.
The developers insistence that this unintuitive nonsense was intended sounds more like lazy post facto rationalization from programers who couldn't figure out an easy way to make it consistent with the rest of the games mechanics.
There is a reason "It's not a bug, it's a feature" is a long standing joke.
That's all this whole argument boils down to. The devs couldn't admit that they made a mistake and didn't think through all the unintended effects of a design change and rather than spending the man hours to fix that mistake they simply claim that it's what they intended all along.
It's not a bug, It's a feature.
Yeah right like I've never heard that one before.
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
|
Posted - 2011.04.27 02:27:00 -
[368]
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 |
Skex Relbore
Gallente Red Federation
|
Posted - 2011.04.27 03:12:00 -
[369]
Originally by: Tippia
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
You continue to ignore the fact that salvage can only exist as a result of a player destroying a ship. Until that ship is reduced to wreckage through the actions of a player it can not be salvaged. You can't salvage an active ship. and there are no spontaneously spawned wrecks.
This is where your logic breaks down. 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.
There is no actual rational argument in favor of the existing game mechanic all you have is appeals to authority (the devs said it) and weak rationalizations based on that appeal.
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
|
Posted - 2011.04.27 03:17:00 -
[370]
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 |
|
HeIIfire11
|
Posted - 2011.04.27 04:23:00 -
[371]
Edited by: HeIIfire11 on 27/04/2011 04:26:25
Originally by: GM Ytterbium]The wreck ownership mechanism has recently been changed, and as such will not belong to the character doing most damage to the NPC anymore, but to the pilot who first accepted the mission.
As far as the wreck ownership goes I believe this says it all. This was the blog on the original change. I don't think the gm just threw it out there for his health. This is what it was intended to be.
If at some later point they decided to change this they should have changed the game design to reflect this choice. Then we wouldn't be having this argument.
The wreck at the time of the change belonged to the mission runner.If that changed at some point the game mechanic should have changed with it. If nothing else,this is at least very poor game design on their side to just leave it like that.
|
Awesome Possum
Original Sin. PURPLE HELMETED WARRIORS
|
Posted - 2011.04.27 04:26:00 -
[372]
Originally by: Skex Relbore If the loot is considered the property of the person who destroyed the rat by the authorities
Actually the loot is considered property of the ship that was destroyed.
Since rats aren't pod pilots and aren't immortal, ownership is transferred. In a mission it is transferred to the mission runner, not the destroyer of the ship. Free space rat loot ownership is transferred to whoever aggressed the rat first, not who destroyed it, nor who did the most damage to it (like bounties).
Wrecks themselves belong to NO ONE. It does not matter what twisted logic you come up with for why it should belong to you. It belongs to no one because CCP said so and it makes the game more fun.
....oh and yes, there are plenty of missions with spontaneously spawned wrecks. ♥
|
HeIIfire11
|
Posted - 2011.04.27 04:30:00 -
[373]
Originally by: Awesome Possum
Wrecks themselves belong to NO ONE.
Wrong it belongs to the mission runner. I think its safe to believe that a GM knows it better than you.
Originally by: GM Ytterbium The wreck ownership mechanism has recently been changed, and as such will not belong to the character doing most damage to the NPC anymore, but to the pilot who first accepted the mission.
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
|
Posted - 2011.04.27 04:31:00 -
[374]
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 |
Awesome Possum
Original Sin. PURPLE HELMETED WARRIORS
|
Posted - 2011.04.27 04:35:00 -
[375]
Originally by: HeIIfire11
Originally by: Awesome Possum
Wrecks themselves belong to NO ONE.
Wrong it belongs to the mission runner. I think its safe to believe that a GM knows it better than you.
Originally by: GM Ytterbium The wreck ownership mechanism has recently been changed, and as such will not belong to the character doing most damage to the NPC anymore, but to the pilot who first accepted the mission.
And you're an idiot talking about loot, we're talking about salvage. The wrecks can only be tractored by the mission runner too, all that means is the GMs have given the MR a leg up over ninjas when it comes to salvaging and MRs still want more coddling.
The wreck belongs to no one, anyone can salvage it free from aggression. CCP said so, get over it because we all know you won't do jack **** if its ever changed. ♥
|
HeIIfire11
|
Posted - 2011.04.27 04:38:00 -
[376]
Originally by: Awesome Possum
Originally by: HeIIfire11
Originally by: Awesome Possum
Wrecks themselves belong to NO ONE.
Wrong it belongs to the mission runner. I think its safe to believe that a GM knows it better than you.
Originally by: GM Ytterbium The wreck ownership mechanism has recently been changed, and as such will not belong to the character doing most damage to the NPC anymore, but to the pilot who first accepted the mission.
And you're an idiot talking about loot, we're talking about salvage. The wrecks can only be tractored by the mission runner too, all that means is the GMs have given the MR a leg up over ninjas when it comes to salvaging and MRs still want more coddling.
The wreck belongs to no one, anyone can salvage it free from aggression. CCP said so, get over it because we all know you won't do jack **** if its ever changed.
No,you're and idiot putting words in my mouth. I said nothing about loot nor did the gm in that quote.
And if I won't do nothing I hope you are the first to come and try if it changes bad ass.
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
|
Posted - 2011.04.27 04:38:00 -
[377]
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 |
Hells Girl
|
Posted - 2011.04.27 04:42:00 -
[378]
Edited by: Hells Girl on 27/04/2011 04:43:09
Originally by: Tippia 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.
I'm not going to argue about what you think he meant.
I'm going to read the words and accept the meaning they have...word for word. Simple as that. Unless you can read minds now too.
Oops wrong char but you know who it is anyway
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
|
Posted - 2011.04.27 04:45:00 -
[379]
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 |
HeIIfire11
|
Posted - 2011.04.27 04:47:00 -
[380]
Either way there's a contradiction there which causes this confusion.
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.
Unfair both ways to be honest hence why I say it's bad game mechanics.
If I was on the side of the salvager I'd be complaining about why I cant tractor beam it if it belongs to "nobody".
|
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
|
Posted - 2011.04.27 04:49:00 -
[381]
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 |
HeIIfire11
|
Posted - 2011.04.27 04:54:00 -
[382]
Originally by: Tippia
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.
leave them yellow. Like one of those CCP quotes says..it's floating garbage. Gargage is something you no longer want and throw away.
Yellow wrecks cant be salvaged. Put a timer on them or whatever. This wouldn't be what I would want but a solution none the less.
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
|
Posted - 2011.04.27 04:56:00 -
[383]
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 |
HeIIfire11
|
Posted - 2011.04.27 05:00:00 -
[384]
Edited by: HeIIfire11 on 27/04/2011 05:00:25
Originally by: Tippia
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.
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 the pay and lp. Theres other ways to do balance it. Its not that big of a buff.
|
Awesome Possum
Original Sin. PURPLE HELMETED WARRIORS
|
Posted - 2011.04.27 05:03:00 -
[385]
Originally by: HeIIfire11 Edited by: HeIIfire11 on 27/04/2011 05:00:25
Originally by: Tippia
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.
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 the pay and lp. Theres other ways to do balance it. Its not that big of a buff.
or... just leave it the way it is, because it works fine. ♥
|
HeIIfire11
|
Posted - 2011.04.27 05:07:00 -
[386]
Originally by: Awesome Possum
Originally by: HeIIfire11 Edited by: HeIIfire11 on 27/04/2011 05:00:25
Originally by: Tippia
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.
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 the pay and lp. Theres other ways to do balance it. Its not that big of a buff.
or... just leave it the way it is, because it works fine.
It doesn't work fine..even for the salvager. Why shouldn't he be able to tractor beam an empty wreck that belongs to no one?
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
|
Posted - 2011.04.27 05:07:00 -
[387]
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 |
Xzar Fyrarr
Suddenly Ninjas Tear Extraction And Reclamation Service
|
Posted - 2011.04.27 05:13:00 -
[388]
Ohshtz. What is this??? ------------------------------------------------ One Cannot Fully Appreciate Peace Until They Have Experienced True Pain. -------------------------------------------------
- Xzar Fyrarr ; |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
|
Posted - 2011.04.27 05:14:00 -
[389]
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 |
HeIIfire11
|
Posted - 2011.04.27 05:14:00 -
[390]
Originally by: Tippia
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.
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.
If it was up to me I would say flag them but it's not. Either way it's unfinished content and bad game design which was my point from the start.
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 [13] 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 .. 25 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |