Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Taex
|
Posted - 2008.07.11 18:11:00 -
[181]
Edited by: Taex on 11/07/2008 18:10:58 They haven't fixed this yet?
WTF
|
Xaen
Caldari Caritas.
|
Posted - 2008.07.11 18:12:00 -
[182]
Originally by: Tippia
Originally by: Xaen You've never ran a mission in Saila, have you? Get one nasty spawn when you're experiencing 40 second lag on module activation in an active tank and you could lose your ship.
No. Why should I? It's a bad place to do missions in, so I don't. Just because you choose to make lag loss a possibility doesn't mean that the game mechanics need to be changed.
That's just an example, you can get a connection drop in any system. The point it is, it proves that you're risking an expensive ship by running a level 4 mission. Arguing anything else is irrelevant.
Personally I don't run missions in the motsu area. Or even in Caldari space. But that isn't the point either, so I'll stop there.
Originally by: Tippia
Quote: Hi irrelevant ad hominem, I'm Xaen!
Not so much an ad hominem as a comment on game mechanics: the missions are designed to be beaten, and if you (as in the generic "you", not you personally) can't do it, you're not taking advantage of all the advantages the game offers you.
You mean flying a raven? Try doing them in a dominix and surviving the drone aggro. You know, where you deploy your primary damage type and the entire room aggros on the drones. Then you pull them in and they turn on you? It's one of the reasons I quit using the dominix. Raven/Golem are easy mode. Once again, my point is: It's entirely possible to lose a ship through no fault of your own, so insulting people who do is simply an ad hominem and contributes nothing to the discussion.
Originally by: Tippia
Originally by: Xaen Yes it is completely impractical with the exception of marauders. Lots of wrecks spawn more than 20km away. Mission battleships are too slow to be practical in chasing them down. Fitting an afterburner generally makes things more impractical. Not less. For example, the Dominix needs the mids for cap rechargers or drone mods. The Raven needs them for tanking....
Then maybe those ships aren't as cracked up for missioning as they're claimed to be?
I can certainly tank them in a bc too, but it results in slower mission completion times due to reduced DPS. So yes, not practical.
Originally by: Tippia If I can tank them in a BC, why can't the Raven?
The raven can, your personal tanking ability isn't relevant to this discussion. If you run missions a battlecruiser, and looting and salvaging while doing it, by all means share your setup and tactics. Because having done it quite a bit, and discussed it with others who have done it even more, I've yet to find anything better (excluding marauders) than a raven and a separate salvaging ship. The raven is too slow to fly around to get in range of all the wrecks when the rats like to orbit at 50km, and the other ships are less efficient.
Originally by: Tippia If my BC can do them just fine without drone mods, why can't the Domi?
*sigh*
Salvaging in the mission ship is far less efficient than using a dedicated salvage ship after the rats are all dead. Ergo, salvaging while running the missions is impractical.
Refute this point in particular, or conceded that it's correct. What you can do in a battlecruiser is in no way relevant. - Support fixing the UI|Suggest Jita fixes|Compact logs |
Quelque Chose
New Eden Roller Disco Supply
|
Posted - 2008.07.11 18:27:00 -
[183]
You guys are insane and going waaaaaaaaay off topic. You can sit around and argue over whose investment/ risk is bigger all you want but it doesn't really do much to further the argument over whether the mechanic ought be changed.
Can anybody other than the guy who's being quoted there explain to me why it is that L4 missioning income is so tenuous that it needs a protectionist change in game mechanics to keep it viable? Or why the current situation constitutes a damaging game imbalance on a larger scale than "he took my stuff! MINE!"?
Again, High Sec L4 missioning is generally acknowledged to be EZ Money(tm). Trading pays better but at least there you can shoot yourself in the foot to the tune of billions if you screw up. Why does L4 mission income need a (statistically probably pretty small) buff? ___________________________________________
|
cal nereus
Perkone
|
Posted - 2008.07.11 18:34:00 -
[184]
Edited by: cal nereus on 11/07/2008 18:35:39
The reason you can't tractor beam a wreck is because there's always a can inside, empty or not. And as much as CCP says no one owns property rights on wrecks, someone does own property rights on the can inside it. Someone can take the salvage, but they can't manipulate the can/loot without some sort of flagging penalty. Originally, not even cans caused flagging.
To be honest, the whole risk-reward thing (and also, effort-reward) isn't perfect in Eve, nor should it be. A smart player can, and will, minimize risk and maximize reward. If other players are taking more risk for less reward, that's more their own personal choice, not a result of faulty mechanics. Rarely is anything in life perfectly balanced regarding the amount of reward you get for the amount of risk you take.
If the isk I earned was tied to risk, I'd get rich off of PvP and mission running would be useless.
I've died in a few missions, and every time I did it was because I made the mistake of running missions during a high-lag period in Eve's 24 hour cycle of population-enduced lag in a specific system that is naturally high on lag. Yes, that's right, I admit that when I lose a ship to lag, it's my fault for being in the lag in the first place. If there's actual risk involved in running missions, it's the risk of making a stupid mistake. I make 'em every now and then, but that's about the only real risk at all.
I just don't like using the risk-reward model to explain how Eve should work. It isn't that simple and fair, nor should it be.
Edit: Especially, since, y'know, if risk-reward WAS balanced, mission running would earn almost nothing at all. --- Earning Isk Basic Skills
|
Xaen
Caldari Caritas.
|
Posted - 2008.07.11 18:44:00 -
[185]
Originally by: Quelque Chose You guys are insane and going waaaaaaaaay off topic. You can sit around and argue over whose investment/ risk is bigger all you want but it doesn't really do much to further the argument over whether the mechanic ought be changed.
It's not off topic really. Salvage thieves have attempted to marginalize the scope of the problem they cause by proposing unworkable solutions. I thought it necessary to shoot them down by proving them unworkable. And the fact that the rewards for salvage thievery are not jsutified by the minimal risks taken by the salvagers. You can do it in an hours old alt in a disposalbe ship. Mission running at the level where the thieves becomes interested requires months of training investment, man days of standings grind, and millions of ISK for the equipment.
It's fairly easy money once you're established, but requires significant investment. Salvage thieves are parasites feeding off the fruit of those investments with little to no investment and nearly no risk.
It should be changed because the risk vs. rewards are unfair to the mission runners, and additinally it's done as much for the joy of griefing more than it is for the profits. Four out of five game mechanics support that the wreck is owned by the mission runner. Only one supports the salvage theives' actions. A lot of players don't even realize that the salvage is currently FFA until someone steals it. This alone is justification for a change of some sort.
I have nothing against salvaging as long as it's done honestly and fairly. Unfortunately there are no good game mechanics to make it a real profession that doesn't absolutely infuriate a huge portion of the EVE player base. And if you don't think it's a huge portion, check the number of people in Motsu, Aramachi and the surrounding systems.
Originally by: Quelque Chose Can anybody other than the guy who's being quoted there explain to me why it is that L4 missioning income is so tenuous that it needs a protectionist change in game mechanics to keep it viable?
Nice straw man argument with loaded words. So I'm not going to bother responding to it.
Originally by: Quelque Chose Or why the current situation constitutes a damaging game imbalance on a larger scale than "he took my stuff! MINE!"?
Yet again, you phrase the question in such a way as to paint any answer in a negative light. So I'm not touching it.
Originally by: Quelque Chose Again, High Sec L4 missioning is generally acknowledged to be EZ Money(tm).
Somewhat, it requires significant investment of time and ISK to get decent returns. Salvage thieves get disproportionate benefits for the investment required. You can probe out missions, then go salvage them within hours of creating a new thieving alt. Try running level 4 missions with an hours old character. Even if you could somehow come up with a ship that could handle it that quickly, you wouldn't have the standings with any corporation to talk to the level 4 agents.
Pretending level 4 missions are as easy as salvage thieving and so shouldn't deserve any rights is disingenuous at best. - Support fixing the UI|Suggest Jita fixes|Compact logs |
Xaen
Caldari Caritas.
|
Posted - 2008.07.11 18:45:00 -
[186]
Originally by: cal nereus The reason you can't tractor beam a wreck is because there's always a can inside, empty or not. And as much as CCP says no one owns property rights on wrecks, someone does own property rights on the can inside it. Someone can take the salvage, but they can't manipulate the can/loot without some sort of flagging penalty. Originally, not even cans caused flagging.
Look mom, I made up a fact!
If you try to tractor a wreck that you do no own the game specifically tells you that you cannot tractor a "wreck" that does not belong to you.
Given that you're already ok with lying to try and make a point, I'm not going to bother reading the rest of your post, let alone replying. - Support fixing the UI|Suggest Jita fixes|Compact logs |
Tippia
Caldari School of Applied Knowledge
|
Posted - 2008.07.11 18:48:00 -
[187]
Edited by: Tippia on 11/07/2008 18:49:53
Originally by: Xaen The point it is, it proves that you're risking an expensive ship by running a level 4 mission.
Everything is possible. You might be mistaken for a RMTer and put into negative a bazillion and/or banned and lose everything that way. Doesn't mean it's likely, and it isn't easily avoidable.
As for the cost, salvaging ships can cost a pretty penny as well, and can be lost to the exact same (unlikely) traps. Quote: You mean flying a raven?
No, I mean training your skills and fitting you ship in a way that makes it next to impossible to be killed. Quote: Try doing them in a dominix and surviving the drone aggro. You know, where you deploy your primary damage type and the entire room aggros on the drones. Then you pull them in and they turn on you?
I do mine in a Myrmidon. None of that is a problem. Quote: Once again, my point is: It's entirely possible to lose a ship through no fault of your own, so insulting people who do is simply an ad hominem and contributes nothing to the discussion.
And my point is that it is your fault for going out in an under-equipped ship, or without having trained the necessary skills. Quote: I can certainly tank them in a bc too, but it results in slower mission completion times due to reduced DPS. So yes, not practical.
Incorrect. It is still very much practical. What you're saying is that it's not as efficient, which is a completely different matter altogether.
However, it neatly ties in to my main point in this thread: risk vs. reward. By flying a heavier ship and salvaing afterwards (for whatever reason), you try to increase your rewards. Those increased rewards must come with an increased risk – losing wrecks to ninja salvagers is that (minute) risk. Quote: The raven can, your personal tanking ability isn't relevant to this discussion.
It's relevant because it shows that all this "oh, but I can't add equipment X because it ruins my tank" nonsense is… well, nonsense. Quote: Because having done it quite a bit, and discussed it with others who have done it even more, I've yet to find anything better (excluding marauders) than a raven and a separate salvaging ship. The raven is too slow to fly around to get in range of all the wrecks when the rats like to orbit at 50km, and the other ships are less efficient.
Risk vs. rewards. I (apparently) choose lower rewards, but gets lower risk. If you want higher rewards, you must accept the higher risks. Quote: Salvaging in the mission ship is far less efficient than using a dedicated salvage ship after the rats are all dead. Ergo, salvaging while running the missions is impractical.
Refute this point in particular, or conceded that it's correct. What you can do in a battlecruiser is in no way relevant.
I'm refuting that it's impractical – I'm not refuting that it's less efficient. You are confusing the two. The only point efficiency and practicality coincides is when your chosen setup simply cannot complete the mission: when efficiency is zero, so is practicality. Beyond that, you need to start discussing the whole matter in terms of risk vs. reward, and "practicality" is just a subjective view on that equation.
|
Quelque Chose
New Eden Roller Disco Supply
|
Posted - 2008.07.11 18:55:00 -
[188]
Originally by: Xaen
Originally by: Quelque Chose Can anybody other than the guy who's being quoted there explain to me why it is that L4 missioning income is so tenuous that it needs a protectionist change in game mechanics to keep it viable?
Nice straw man argument with loaded words. So I'm not going to bother responding to it.
No sir, it's the core of the argument and you won't respond to it because you are apparently an honest man. Cheers.
The simple fact of the matter is this: salvage "theft" reduces the global net income of mission runners by x% (and if I had to guess I'd say that x is probably a pretty small value). If salvage aggro mechanics are changed, that loss to shrinkage will be reduced somewhat to x-y%, thereby representing roughly a y% buff to overall missioning income.
It's well established that Eve isn't necessarily about fairness, so I don't know why we'd bother bringing it up. From a game balance perspective, the only real question is whether or not missioning needs the buff you and others are asking for... and that's a question you refuse to answer because it's pretty evident that it doesn't. ___________________________________________
|
Minami Sayuri
|
Posted - 2008.07.11 19:38:00 -
[189]
I personally believe that wrecks should have a timer before someone is allowed to salvage it without getting flagged. It's really just not fair to the person running a mission to have someone come in a start salvaging while you're still trying to clear a room. At very lease put a 1-hour timer on it and after that, let it be free domain.
|
Calacheng
Caldari
|
Posted - 2008.07.11 19:53:00 -
[190]
Edited by: Calacheng on 11/07/2008 19:55:50
Originally by: Quelque Chose The simple fact of the matter is this: salvage "theft" reduces the global net income of mission runners by x% (and if I had to guess I'd say that x is probably a pretty small value). If salvage aggro mechanics are changed, that loss to shrinkage will be reduced somewhat to x-y%, thereby representing roughly a y% buff to overall missioning income.
That means you assume that salvage stealing was included in the basic level of the missioning income and that is not true. Salvage stealing is a nerf to missioning income and removing the contradiction about the wreck ownership and returning it back by that x% would not be buff. It would just be a removing of the nerf and fixing the mistake they did.
It has been a mistake all along since four out of five game mechanics support that the wreck is owned by the mission runner. Only one supports the salvage thieves' actions. Salvage thieves exploit that contradiction as much as they can before it is fixed.
|
|
Tippia
Caldari School of Applied Knowledge
|
Posted - 2008.07.11 20:14:00 -
[191]
Edited by: Tippia on 11/07/2008 20:14:44
Originally by: Calacheng Salvage stealing is a nerf to missioning income and removing the contradiction about the wreck ownership and returning it back by that x% would not be buff. It would just be a removing of the nerf and fixing the mistake they did.
…it was a "nerf" that the mission runners asked for.
Also, it could just as well be argued that, since salvaging wan't included in missionin originally, its introduction was a buff, and that ninja salvaging simply brought things back to where they're supposed to be.
Both are silly arguments – QQC's point still stands: regardless of what the mission rewards were at some point in the past, assigning ownership to salvage is a buff to missionining as it exists today, and there is very little to suggest that such a buff is needed.
|
Xaen
Caldari Caritas.
|
Posted - 2008.07.11 20:36:00 -
[192]
Originally by: Calacheng Edited by: Calacheng on 11/07/2008 19:55:50
Originally by: Quelque Chose The simple fact of the matter is this: salvage "theft" reduces the global net income of mission runners by x% (and if I had to guess I'd say that x is probably a pretty small value). If salvage aggro mechanics are changed, that loss to shrinkage will be reduced somewhat to x-y%, thereby representing roughly a y% buff to overall missioning income.
That means you assume that salvage stealing was included in the basic level of the missioning income and that is not true. Salvage stealing is a nerf to missioning income and removing the contradiction about the wreck ownership and returning it back by that x% would not be buff. It would just be a removing of the nerf and fixing the mistake they did.
It has been a mistake all along since four out of five game mechanics support that the wreck is owned by the mission runner. Only one supports the salvage thieves' actions. Salvage thieves exploit that contradiction as much as they can before it is fixed.
It's actually seven out of eight.
- The name of the player that killed the NPC is the one on the wreck.
- The picture of the player that killed the NPC is the one on the wreck.
- The sec status of the player that killed the NPC is the one on the wreck.
- The corp tag of the player that killed the NPC is the one on the wreck.
- Only the person that killed the NPC, their gang mates, or their player corpmates can destroy the wreck without concord intervention.
- Only the person that killed the NPC, their gang mates, or their player corpmates can tractor the wreck.
- If someone else tries to tractor the wreck they get a message that states that you cannot tractor it be cause "the wreck does not belong to you"
- Support fixing the UI|Suggest Jita fixes|Compact logs |
Xaen
Caldari Caritas.
|
Posted - 2008.07.11 20:38:00 -
[193]
Edited by: Xaen on 11/07/2008 20:39:09
Originally by: Tippia Edited by: Tippia on 11/07/2008 20:14:44
Originally by: Calacheng Salvage stealing is a nerf to missioning income and removing the contradiction about the wreck ownership and returning it back by that x% would not be buff. It would just be a removing of the nerf and fixing the mistake they did.
àit was a "nerf" that the mission runners asked for.
Also, it could just as well be argued that, since salvaging wan't included in missionin originally, its introduction was a buff, and that ninja salvaging simply brought things back to where they're supposed to be.
Both are silly arguments û QQC's point still stands: regardless of what the mission rewards were at some point in the past, assigning ownership to salvage is a buff to missionining as it exists today, and there is very little to suggest that such a buff is needed.
You keep misspelling "change" as "buff" for some reason.
That's a weird neurosis.
Also, prove it was a change the mission runners asked for, or stop saying it. - Support fixing the UI|Suggest Jita fixes|Compact logs |
Tippia
Caldari School of Applied Knowledge
|
Posted - 2008.07.11 20:45:00 -
[194]
Originally by: Xaen Also, prove it was a change the mission runners asked for, or stop saying it.
See earlier posts in the thread. Quote: It's actually seven out of eight.
…all of which would prove something if we could separate the cargo can from the ship. As it is, we can't, and the outdated UI doesn't really prove anything either way. You can come across a lot of things marked "cargo container" in the overview then, when you try to tractor them, yield the message "you can only tractor wrecks and cargo containers."
|
Xaen
Caldari Caritas.
|
Posted - 2008.07.11 21:03:00 -
[195]
Originally by: Tippia Edited by: Tippia on 11/07/2008 20:48:08
Originally by: Xaen Also, prove it was a change the mission runners asked for, or stop saying it.
See earlier posts in the thread. Quote: It's actually seven out of eight.
àall of which would prove something if we could separate the cargo can from the ship. As it is, we can't, and the outdated UI doesn't really prove anything either way. You can come across a lot of things marked "cargo container" in the overview then, when you try to tractor them, yield the message "you can only tractor wrecks and cargo containers."
Also, for someone who's very touchy about supposed ad hominem attacks, you sure do call people liars and psychos a lotà
None of your pseudoarguments will stick to the point, but rather present straw man arguments, or pure ad hominem attacks. I got tired of trying to point them out.
And this post is a perfect example.
Liars are people who say things that are not true. You said something that was not true.
Having neuroses does not make you psychopath, thus I did not actually call anyone a psychopath, nor even attempt to imply it. You apparently don't even know what a psychopath is, based on your statements thus far. So you saying I'm calling people one makes you both a liar and someone terrible at formulating a cogent argument. - Support fixing the UI|Suggest Jita fixes|Compact logs |
Tippia
Caldari School of Applied Knowledge
|
Posted - 2008.07.11 21:13:00 -
[196]
Originally by: Xaen Liars are people who say things that are not true. You said something that was not true.
Incorrect.
|
Calacheng
Caldari
|
Posted - 2008.07.11 21:28:00 -
[197]
Originally by: Tippia
Originally by: Xaen Liars are people who say things that are not true.
Incorrect.
No it is not. Liars really are people who say things that are not true. You can't be so uneducated that you don't know that.
|
Tippia
Caldari School of Applied Knowledge
|
Posted - 2008.07.11 21:29:00 -
[198]
Originally by: Calacheng No it is not. Liars really are people who say things that are not true. You can't be so uneducated that you don't know that.
Maybe you should quote me correctly.
|
Calacheng
Caldari
|
Posted - 2008.07.11 22:12:00 -
[199]
I quoted you correctly. I just left out a part of it like you have done just to show you your way of arguing.
|
Tippia
Caldari School of Applied Knowledge
|
Posted - 2008.07.11 22:14:00 -
[200]
Originally by: Calacheng I quoted you correctly. I just left out a part of it like you have done just to show you your way of arguing.
Incorrect on both accounts. Context is good for you.
|
|
Nathanial Victor
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2008.07.11 22:44:00 -
[201]
jesus christ its like listening to 2 kids argue in the back seat!
you just want to turn around and smack em both regardless of who is right or wrong. "one more spam thread will get you a warning. - Thanks Hutch. " isn't a warning of a warning a warning? or just a warning of a warning? didnt he just get 'the warning'?
my head hurts |
Dayanara Ryell
Suddenly Ninjas
|
Posted - 2008.07.11 23:52:00 -
[202]
Originally by: Xaen Also, prove it was a change the mission runners asked for, or stop saying it.
Actually Xaen is semi-correct here. The missioners didn't ask for any changes to be made to the salvaging mechanics. However, as I posted in a different post on this exact same topic:
Originally by: Dayanara Ryell Salvage has never been considered the property of the person who blew up the rat. When it was first implemented you could salvage an empty wreck with no agro granted to the person who killed the rat. The agro was only granted when the salvager came across a wreck that had loot in it since, at that time, a wreck had to be empty before being salvaged. So to fix this minor problem, CCP changed it so that a wreck did not need to be empty to salvage it. That's it.
Day
We're Recruiting! |
Calacheng
Caldari
|
Posted - 2008.07.13 05:37:00 -
[203]
By separating salvage from the loot flagging the salvage was thought to have no value when salvage often is more valuable than the loot. In faction kill missions like Enemies abound, the salvage has even more value since you don't get any bounties from the NPC ships. There is no way to defend against salvage thieves that are in NPC corp.
|
Lrd Byron
|
Posted - 2008.07.13 06:15:00 -
[204]
First of all, there does not have to be risk in some activity for a reward to be appropriate. There is no risk in mining for example. There just needs to be work in exchange for a reward. The guy stealing your salvage did work, he spent time training the skills and taking the time to probe you out. Salvage is not like loot either. It requires skills and specific gear to obtain, and what the wreck salvages into, I believe at any rate, is random right up until a succesful salvage, so you can't claim its your salvage as there was nothing there until someone salvaged it.
|
Ragnar Darkstar
|
Posted - 2008.07.13 08:34:00 -
[205]
I don't understand, from a RP reason why NPC salvage is treated differently from everything else. I mean, how is it different if I approach a shipwreck and remove a railgun as opposed to a tritium bar or some microcircuits? It is all just part of the wreck. CCP should make everything fair game or make everything flaggable.
|
Marlenus
Caldari Ironfleet Towing And Salvage
|
Posted - 2008.07.13 18:39:00 -
[206]
I think enough time and pages have gone by that it's worth posting this again:
Per GM Faolchu : Originally by: GM Faolchu Salvaging other peoples wrecks.... This is an intended game mechanic and is in no way an exploit. People salvaging your missions npcs or the player you just blew up are doing nothing wrong. The players are salvaging what is effectively floating rubbish in space and Concord places no value on this wreckage.
Eve is a harsh place you won't always have everything go your way, its a do or die world and people do what they can to get along. If salvaging some wreckage gets them a few more ISK someone will do it, it doesn't matter who just blew it up.
(This quote is kept handy for your convenience at Ironfleet.com.)
People, you are wasting your breath. ------------------ Ironfleet.com |
Khlitouris RegusII
|
Posted - 2008.07.13 19:13:00 -
[207]
Originally by: Nathanial Victor Edited by: Nathanial Victor on 27/06/2008 21:11:03 ?
Whats up with that? If they loot a can i can pwn them. If they salvage a wreck i can't.
Is there some programing reason this isn't the same and its really hard to fix? (i'd find that hard to believe). Is it intentional?
If you think about it, ppl that nija salavge in high sec are getting reward with 0 risk... especially if they are a member of newb corp (as you cant declare war on them).
Anyone want to clear this up for me? Am i missing something?
----------
edit: thanks for the clarification. This thread is now about discussing the ridiculous policy that wreck and their salvage is public domain while the loot inside of them is not.
If theyre salvaging your wreck then not much you can do in a pod with killrights and they would prolly be gone by time you docked and got in a combat ship. if your talking about say wrecks left behind by ratting or missioning then they arent your wrecks they belong to the poor player/npc you killed and anyone can salvage them.
|
Xaen
Caldari Caritas.
|
Posted - 2008.07.13 19:51:00 -
[208]
Originally by: Marlenus I think enough time and pages have gone by that it's worth posting this again:
Per GM Faolchu : Originally by: GM Faolchu Salvaging other peoples wrecks.... This is an intended game mechanic and is in no way an exploit. People salvaging your missions npcs or the player you just blew up are doing nothing wrong. The players are salvaging what is effectively floating rubbish in space and Concord places no value on this wreckage.
Eve is a harsh place you won't always have everything go your way, its a do or die world and people do what they can to get along. If salvaging some wreckage gets them a few more ISK someone will do it, it doesn't matter who just blew it up.
(This quote is kept handy for your convenience at Ironfleet.com.)
People, you are wasting your breath.
Reposting the same garbage isn't contributing anything to the argument.
Also, you should realize that GMs have not power to do anything other than follow the rules they're given. So it must be taken as a given that they cannot do anything but parrot the policies they've been told to. In short, they're not capable of contributing anything useful to the discussion either because their powers to not extend to game design or potential changes.
If you're not quoting something said recently uttered by a current game designer, you're contributing nothing to the discussion either.
I'm wasting my breath? At least I'm not acting like a parrot. - Support fixing the UI|Suggest Jita fixes|Compact logs |
Calacheng
Caldari
|
Posted - 2008.07.16 05:16:00 -
[209]
Originally by: Khlitouris RegusII
If theyre salvaging your wreck then not much you can do in a pod with killrights and they would prolly be gone by time you docked and got in a combat ship. if your talking about say wrecks left behind by ratting or missioning then they arent your wrecks they belong to the poor player/npc you killed and anyone can salvage them.
What about the wrecks that are in that same pocket where the fighting is still going on? And then the salvage stealer comes there and steals the valuable salvage and you can't do anything about it.
Salvage cannot be called junk as junk has no value and there would not be any point in stealing junk. They steal it because it is very valuable and they can take it without being killed by any other way than suicide attack because the mission runner will be destroyed by Concorde if he/she shoots the salvage stealing scum.
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |