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) |
Zyress
|
Posted - 2011.04.29 21:26:00 -
[511]
I would point out that after I loot the wreck which has my corp name on it and cannot be shot or tractored by you without Concord involvement, the wreck still has my name on it and still cannot be tractored or shot by you without Concorde involvement. This tells me that despite what you say, I still have some ownership of the wreck you do not have after the loot is removed.
|
HeIIfire11
|
Posted - 2011.04.29 21:28:00 -
[512]
Edited by: HeIIfire11 on 29/04/2011 21:33:14
Originally by: Tippia
Quote: And to clear things up I'm not after a mission buff
Funny that, seeing as how you're arguing for one.
No I'm not. Why would I argue to get something I already have? Nothing's stopping me from salvaging I just choose to leave it. Why should I care who it belongs to? No my point is just what I said it was..nothing more nothing less.
And about the can..you say there is one and ccp says there isn't. Which is it? Who is right you or ccp? Can only be one since the two statements contradict each other.
"In Kali all ships (player and NPC) will spawn wrecks upon destruction. This will replace the loot can."
|
Karash Amerius
Sutoka
|
Posted - 2011.04.29 21:35:00 -
[513]
Haven't seen a troll thread go 17 pages in quite awhile.
Grats to the OP. ========================= Karash Amerius - Operative - Sutoka Fighting Broke - A Eve Online Blog ========================= |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
|
Posted - 2011.04.29 21:36:00 -
[514]
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 |
Mintala Arana
Amarr
|
Posted - 2011.04.29 21:38:00 -
[515]
People are currently way too focussed on the mechanics of who owns what. At the end of the day, it doesn't matter what those mechanics are, except insofar as they could potentially be less confusing. CCP's intent is clearly stated in various dev blogs, forum posts, and the like: Loot belongs to the mission runner, and may only be taken if the taker is willing to commit a minor act of aggression against said mission runner. Salvage belongs to whoever gets to a wreck first with a successful salvager cycle. That's the design, and that's what's implemented.
Now, as for those mechanics... As far as i'm concerned, they make sufficient sense. You shoot a ship until it esplodes and you get a wreck. (We all like the pretty 'splosions, right?) In that wreck is (maybe) some loot, which belongs to you, per CONCORD. "You shot the ship and made the wreck, you get the usable contents." The game mechanic that enables this ownership is that all containers in space are owned, and an object may not be floating in space separate from a container. (Ignoring planets and other celestials, plus some other stuff, here). Whether a wreck contains a can, or is a can, doesn't matter, though, except to worse pedants than me.
Where carebears feel this breaks down is around salvage. Problem for a carebear: it looks like the salvage logically exists in the wreck (which is owned) from the moment of the wreck's creation. As far as game mechanics are concerned, though, it doesn't. It's created by operating a particular type of scanner on the wreck, a Salvager I or Salvager II, which are listed in the item database under "Data and composition scanners". A salvager effectively creates the salvage it finds when it succeeds in accessing the container. And CONCORD has said very clearly that salvage is free for the finding. Anyone can salvage any wreck at any time, and it isn't considered an aggressive act.
Changing this so that the salvage belongs to the carebear mission runner will buff mission rewards, creating an entitlement where none presently exists. Not in a useful way, because it's not worth salvaging if you're running L4 missions for your bread and butter, but nevertheless, it's a buff. And speaking as an L4 mission runner, L4 missions are already quite lucrative enough, thankyouverymuch. Changing the ownership mechanism will also nerf salvaging as a mini-profession. Currently, salvaging is something you can skill up to much faster than running L4 missions efficiently. It doesn't pay nearly as well, but that's fine for something less skill-intensive.
Worst of all, other existing game mechanics are likely to have to change to accommodate salvage-as-mission-reward. the simple solution is to make activating a salvager on a wreck that isn't yours an aggressive act. Problem is that doing that (activating a module aggressively) in high security space calls in CONCORD. Concording a salvager seems just a tad harsh, now doesn't it? So you'd have to change aggression mechanics around modules to include "minor aggression" where today you have only "passive" and "aggressive". This is likely to have a large and ugly ripple effect on combat...
The final nail in the coffin of the whole discussion should be that CCP wants EVE Online to be a cold, hard game, one where people do what they have to do to get by. That means conflict at every step of your career as a capsuleer. The conflict between mission runner and ninja salvager is intentional. If you don't like it but can live with it, fine. Don't expect it to change, though, because CCP has said they do like it. If you can't live with it (the ninja salvaging issue is a deal-breaker) all I can say is don't let the door hit you in the butt on your way to Hello Kitty Online.
|
Jayson Lee
Minmatar Universal Exports
|
Posted - 2011.04.29 21:51:00 -
[516]
Quote: You're not avoiding them, then.
I guess its how you use the word I avoid concord by not doing anything to bring them about. I know eluding them is a bannable offense. Its trivial I know, I dont know why its brought up.
Quote: Nope.
And that doesnt raise any questions in your mind? Even can flipping at least gets flagged, and im pretty sure CCP stance on that is you jettisoned, you must not want it. 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?
Quote: 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."
If its not a reward, why do you claim if things are changed its a boost to MR? The MR gets no extra reward, he basically changes his hat and becomes a salvager. Salvaging doenst get nerfed at all. It just limits who can salvage where, the profession has no change.
Quote: 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?
That is not the only thing. Why does concord care if you blow up a wreck in my mission but i dont?
|
Mortania
Minmatar No Compromise Gentlemen's Agreement
|
Posted - 2011.04.29 22:03:00 -
[517]
I'd be fine with any system which made ownership clearer. I think the easiest solution is to treat them as the jet cans they replaced. But I'd be equally fine with any other system which makes their mildly convoluted ownership clearer.
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
|
Posted - 2011.04.29 22:05:00 -
[518]
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 |
Mortania
Minmatar No Compromise Gentlemen's Agreement
|
Posted - 2011.04.29 22:09:00 -
[519]
Originally by: Tippia Because the wreck contains an owned object.
I thought looted wrecks still caused response, no?
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
|
Posted - 2011.04.29 22:12:00 -
[520]
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 |
|
Aeronwen Carys
Empire of Dust
|
Posted - 2011.04.29 22:29:00 -
[521]
Are you lot still banging on about this? Really? Loot belongs to the mission runner, the wreck is salvageable by anyone. That seems really clear to me. What have I missed?
|
Malcanis
Caldari Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
|
Posted - 2011.04.29 22:37:00 -
[522]
Originally by: Aeronwen Carys Are you lot still banging on about this? Really? Loot belongs to the mission runner, the wreck is salvageable by anyone. That seems really clear to me. What have I missed?
18 pages of trolling and denial of the recorded facts.
Malcanis' Law: Whenever a mechanics change is proposed on behalf of "new players", that change is always to the overwhelming advantage of richer, older players. |
Mortania
Minmatar No Compromise Gentlemen's Agreement
|
Posted - 2011.04.29 22:42:00 -
[523]
Originally by: Aeronwen Carys Are you lot still banging on about this? Really? Loot belongs to the mission runner, the wreck is salvageable by anyone. That seems really clear to me. What have I missed?
Reading comprehension classes? Your ADHD drugs?
There's a more nuanced discussion going on. But, 8/10 for the witty one liner.
|
Jayson Lee
Minmatar Universal Exports
|
Posted - 2011.04.29 22:45:00 -
[524]
Originally by: Malcanis
Originally by: Aeronwen Carys Are you lot still banging on about this? Really? Loot belongs to the mission runner, the wreck is salvageable by anyone. That seems really clear to me. What have I missed?
18 pages of trolling and denial of the recorded facts.
Lets be fair, im trying to figure out a few things.
Like the quote that says wrecks will replace, not contain, loot cans.
The fact that only the MR can shoot the wrecks, anyone else is flagged.
Wrecks have player name attached to them.
Only MR can tractor the wrecks.
There might be others, but these arent just trivial things. There is no doubt that CCP is fine with things as is, but it doesnt hurt to discuss some of the features that might need adjusting.
I havnt seen a salvager entire my missions, cant say it would bother me if they did. I more focused on the mechanics that appear to contradict themselves. CCP has changed their minds before and the forums seem to be a good place to voice those concerns.
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
|
Posted - 2011.04.29 22:50:00 -
[525]
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 |
HeIIfire11
|
Posted - 2011.04.29 22:59:00 -
[526]
Well since Tippia is in a state of denial I can rest my case. Without your make pretend can you have nothing else to bring to the table. Same can that ccp says was replaced by wrecks.
And this is where the argument goes in my favor. Because without the can (which ccp says no longer exists)there is no reason for a wreck to have my name on it.
This is also where my point is proven and the bad game design in this mini profession comes in..thus causing the confusion.
I'm sorry but as much as you love to be right Tippia this time you'll have to do without. A quote from the devs you hold so highly is above what you want to believe and how you would like to imagine it.
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.It either does belong to the mission runner or its bad designed mini profession which was my point from page one.
You'll have to pick one but you can't have it all your way
I'll just leave this here for reference...
"In Kali all ships (player and NPC) will spawn wrecks upon destruction. This will replace the loot can."
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
|
Posted - 2011.04.29 23:07:00 -
[527]
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 |
Doctor Mabuse
|
Posted - 2011.04.29 23:13:00 -
[528]
It's really very simple. When an NPC is popped an object is created, for the sake of argument we'll call it a 'wreck'. This 'wreck' consists of a can wrapped up in space junk, bits of the original ship, scrap metal.
It belongs to the mission runner that popped the NPC; only he can tractor it, and only he can legitimately open the can buried inside and retrieve the intact mods that dropped from the NPC. If anyone else retrieves these mods it is considered stealing and they will be flagged. if anyone elese dstroys the mission runners wreck they will be destroyed by CONCORD.
However, the space junk that surrounds the can can be stripped off by using a salvager, this will turn the space junk into broken salvage parts inside the hold of whatever ship is doing the salvaging, leaving the can at the core of the wreck intact and on its own. This salvaging activity is available for anyone to complete, no-one has any rights over the space junk surrounding the can that makes up the wreck.
Not bad game design, just badly explained. ------------------------------------
Who's trip-trapping on my bridge? |
Jayson Lee
Minmatar Universal Exports
|
Posted - 2011.04.29 23:15:00 -
[529]
Originally by: Tippia
Originally by: Jayson Lee I more focused on the mechanics that appear to contradict themselves.
Not much to focus on, then.
Nothing?
Why can I blow up wrecks and the ninja salvager cant? Maybe this was cleared up, but loot or not, can anyone else shoot a wreck without concord responding?
|
Mortania
Minmatar No Compromise Gentlemen's Agreement
|
Posted - 2011.04.29 23:20:00 -
[530]
Originally by: Tippia àso how do you communicate the ownership of the loot, if not on the wreck?
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, could have been implemented 5 years ago. Etc.
The bottom line is CCP changed things a little bit, but didn't clean up their work.
Does this come as a major surprise to anyone?
|
|
HeIIfire11
|
Posted - 2011.04.29 23:23:00 -
[531]
Edited by: HeIIfire11 on 29/04/2011 23:23:54
Originally by: Tippia
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.
What model and what does it explain where other than in your mind?
Originally by: Tippia
Originally by: HeIIfire11 And this is where the argument goes in my favor.
In favour of what?
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.
Originally by: Tippia
Originally by: HeIIfire11 ]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.
Again..what model? 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.
Originally by: Tippia
Originally by: HeIIfire11 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.
Exactly what is it that was introduced a year ago? Salvage is a good bit older than a year. Not only that it isn't an excuse for the confusion but a proof of unfinished content just thrown out without changing the older content to accomidate the new profession.
Originally by: Tippia
Originally by: HeIIfire11 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?
Sorry I don't get paid to figure that out..infact I pay ccp to do so. Not to mention this is not relevant to the argument. The op made a point stating that it's bbad game design and I agree.This much has been proven by misleading quotes and misleading game mechanics to go along with it. Fixing it..even if I knew how,wont happen anyways.
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
|
Posted - 2011.04.29 23:25:00 -
[532]
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 |
HeIIfire11
|
Posted - 2011.04.29 23:31:00 -
[533]
Edited by: HeIIfire11 on 29/04/2011 23:31:48
Originally by: Tippia
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?
So now we went from a can to an "owned object" ....I see
You're not helping the confusion any buddy
|
Mortania
Minmatar No Compromise Gentlemen's Agreement
|
Posted - 2011.04.29 23:37:00 -
[534]
Edited by: Mortania on 29/04/2011 23:39:55
Originally by: Tippia
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?
Removal of tags on an object.
EDIT: And concord response.
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
|
Posted - 2011.04.29 23:41:00 -
[535]
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 |
HeIIfire11
|
Posted - 2011.04.30 00:07:00 -
[536]
Edited by: HeIIfire11 on 30/04/2011 00:11:12
Originally by: Tippia
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.
Okay..page 17. Alot was said there and you expect me to pull something out of there? Don't be lazy..quote and explain what model you're talking about that explains what exactly?
Originally by: Tippia
Originally by: HeIIfire11 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?
So at least you are admitting that cans were replaced..we are going places. What makes it unfinished is that the game does not show that the wreck belongs to no one as intended by ccp.
Originally by: Tippia
Originally by: HeIIfire11 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.
An empty can contains no loot. Apart fromm the fact that they were replaced and no longer exist to begin with.
Originally by: Tippia
Originally by: HeIIfire11 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.
I can and do because they could have changed the old content while bringing in the new. It has been a year after all. And that is only a fix if the mission runner chooses to abandon the wreck and does so. Giving it up in free will not because the game design dictates it like it should to reflect the intended design.
Originally by: Tippia
Originally by: HeIIfire11 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?
The sloppy unfinished content was thrown out there without changing the wrecks tag to reflect the intended game design.
Originally by: Tippia
Originally by: HeIIfire11 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.
I can teach you that the sky is green doesn't make it so. Would help if the sky was green though. And the only one rejecting something here is you rejecting the fact that salvaging is unfinished content. And that the "can" no longer exists as an excuse for it.
Originally by: Tippia 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.
Sorry no..thats what weve been arguing about for 18 pages. What belongs or appears to belong to who.
|
Awesome Possum
Original Sin. PURPLE HELMETED WARRIORS
|
Posted - 2011.04.30 00:15:00 -
[537]
i'm right, you're all wrong... even the ones that agreed with me. ♥
|
HeIIfire11
|
Posted - 2011.04.30 00:17:00 -
[538]
Edited by: HeIIfire11 on 30/04/2011 00:17:45 The almighty possum has spoken..nothing left to see here. Move along..move along.
|
Tanya Tarajaka
|
Posted - 2011.04.30 00:21:00 -
[539]
Originally by: Lissian
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.
As such its not too much to ask that stealing my salvage should flag the ninja.
To be fair, you created the wreck, and your loot inside it. It's only your salvage if you have trained the Salvaging skill, have a Salvager fitted to your ship and salvage the wreck you've made.
There is a very similar mechanic in WoW, if you'll forgive the analogy. With the Skinning profession, you could skin the corpses of beasts that other players killed. If you learned the profession, you could skin your own corpses. Of course, Skinning was not suitable for every class, and you were limited in WoW to only two professions, unlike EVE. Skinning a corpse of a beast another player killed did not flag you as a thief; salvaging a wreck of a ship another player destroyed should have the same outcome.
Skinning a corpse of a beast another player killed did not flag you as a thief because you could not skin a beast that had not been looted already by the owner. Which meant they had already finished with it and a beast could not be skinned if the owner did not remove the loot. Unlike in Eve they can skin the beast leaving the loot before the owner has a chance to do anything about it.
But where the Eve mechanic is really crappy, is most ninjas turn up whilst you're in combat with the NPCs so if it's a tough mission for you that you are doing you can't loot as you go. So only choice is blow up the wreaks, jump out and hope the rats get them or just forget it.
There's no real risk for a ninja salvager they're even protected by Concord. So imo they should get flagged so at least you can defend your wreaks. You could say that's good because they can ninja salvage so as to force a conflict, but on the other hand you could do a mission in order to set up a ninja salvager.
|
HeIIfire11
|
Posted - 2011.04.30 00:27:00 -
[540]
Edited by: HeIIfire11 on 30/04/2011 00:28:24
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?
Edit:Or leave it be and fix the tag on the wrecks to reflect the desired effect.
|
|
|
|
|
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 |