These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

EVE General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
12Next page
 

Blue Containers=Free for all??
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Ashlar Maidstone
MoonFyre BattleGroup Holdings
#1 - 2014-01-20 20:26:10 UTC
No complaining, ranting, or crying please
=======================================================================================
As we all know there are times we go out to do some ratting and look for some easy kills in belts. Well we know there are three ways to find out if you can/cannot shoot at wrecks in belts in particular in hisec.

White=yours

Yellow= somebody else's wrecks

Blue= Free for all.

Now, I went out today for a bit to do some ratting and saw some BLUE wrecks that had already been empty out, so locking on one I proceeded to let a couple missiles loose and guess what, I get blown up by Concord.

Now, I had thought if a wreck was marked blue you could salvage or shoot it in hisec, and unless something was changed since I was away before then why am I getting shot and losing ships?? As far as I know I thought if it was blue you could do whatever but I guess not?? Any thoughts or ideas be appreciated.

FLY RECKLESS!!Pirate
Kimmi Chan
Tastes Like Purple
#2 - 2014-01-20 20:29:07 UTC
Ashlar Maidstone wrote:
No complaining, ranting, or crying please
=======================================================================================
As we all know there are times we go out to do some ratting and look for some easy kills in belts. Well we know there are three ways to find out if you can/cannot shoot at wrecks in belts in particular in hisec.

White=yours

Yellow= somebody else's wrecks

Blue= Free for all.

Now, I went out today for a bit to do some ratting and saw some BLUE wrecks that had already been empty out, so locking on one I proceeded to let a couple missiles loose and guess what, I get blown up by Concord.

Now, I had thought if a wreck was marked blue you could salvage or shoot it in hisec, and unless something was changed since I was away before then why am I getting shot and losing ships?? As far as I know I thought if it was blue you could do whatever but I guess not?? Any thoughts or ideas be appreciated.

FLY RECKLESS!!Pirate


Why do you hate wrecks so much?

"Grr Kimmi  Nerf Chans!" ~Jenn aSide

www.eve-radio.com  Join Eve Radio channel in game!
Benny Ohu
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#3 - 2014-01-20 20:29:36 UTC
I suggest turning the safety to yellow
Billy McCandless
Zacharia Explorations Group
#4 - 2014-01-20 20:31:07 UTC
Ashlar Maidstone wrote:
No complaining, ranting, or crying please
=======================================================================================
Any thoughts or ideas be appreciated.


The Three Laws are:
A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
A robot must obey the orders given to it by human beings, except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.

Asimov believed that, ideally, humans would also follow the Laws:
"I have my answer ready whenever someone asks me if I think that my Three Laws of Robotics will actually be used to govern the behavior of robots, once they become versatile and flexible enough to able to choose among different courses of behavior.
My answer is, "Yes, the Three Laws are the only way in which rational human beings can deal with robots—or with anything else."
—But when I say that, I always remember (sadly) that human beings are not always rational."

"Thread locked for being deemed a total loss." - ISD Ezwal
Unsuccessful At Everything
The Troll Bridge
#5 - 2014-01-20 21:19:08 UTC
The safety button is not there so you cannot hurt others, it is there so people like you cannot hurt themselves.




Since the cessation of their usefulness is imminent, may I appropriate your belongings?
Khergit Deserters
Crom's Angels
#6 - 2014-01-20 21:23:57 UTC  |  Edited by: Khergit Deserters
CONCORD, you should just admit to OP that you messed up. Instead of hiring all of these posters to change the subject and cover for you.
Hasikan Miallok
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#7 - 2014-01-20 22:21:43 UTC
Amusing how when people have no understanding of things they just troll. Its a revealing insight into how real world politics works.



I am pretty sure even some "white" wrecks are un-shootable if you are in a fleet. Basically the game tags you as the owner of the wreck and nothing can change that status.

The most reasonable explanation of why the game works this way is that because a blue wreck is still your wreck, allowing people to shoot it would lead to an exploit where you could keep a limited engagement going for 2 hours (at which point the remaining wrecks would disappear).

In essence the problem is not the Concord mechanic, the problem arises because the game tags the blue wreck as still "belonging" to the original owner.
Vincent Athena
Photosynth
#8 - 2014-01-20 22:49:46 UTC
Ashlar Maidstone wrote:
No complaining, ranting, or crying please
=======================================================================================
As we all know there are times we go out to do some ratting and look for some easy kills in belts. Well we know there are three ways to find out if you can/cannot shoot at wrecks in belts in particular in hisec.

White=yours

Yellow= somebody else's wrecks

Blue= Free for all.

Now, I went out today for a bit to do some ratting and saw some BLUE wrecks that had already been empty out, so locking on one I proceeded to let a couple missiles loose and guess what, I get blown up by Concord.

Now, I had thought if a wreck was marked blue you could salvage or shoot it in hisec, and unless something was changed since I was away before then why am I getting shot and losing ships?? As far as I know I thought if it was blue you could do whatever but I guess not?? Any thoughts or ideas be appreciated.

FLY RECKLESS!!Pirate

A blue wreck is still the property of the one who made it. As such shooting it calls CONCORD. The owner has given everyone permission to loot it, but in CONCORD's eyes its still his wreck. Irrelevant of wreck color, you can salvage without legal consequences.

Know a Frozen fan? Check this out

Frozen fanfiction
Tau Cabalander
Retirement Retreat
Working Stiffs
#9 - 2014-01-20 22:54:18 UTC
Blue = Free to loot, not free to shoot.

If you can legally attack the owner, you can legally attack the container.
Ashlar Maidstone
MoonFyre BattleGroup Holdings
#10 - 2014-01-21 00:43:12 UTC
@ Vincent, that makes a lot of sense, thank you sir,

@ Tau, that's a good point, thank you sir.

FLY RECKLESS!!Pirate
Erotica 1
Krypteia Operations
#11 - 2014-01-21 01:43:54 UTC  |  Edited by: Erotica 1
Borrow a book from a public library and all is good. Blow up a library and go to prison.

See Bio for isk doubling rules. If you didn't read bio, chances are you funded those who did.
Katran Luftschreck
Royal Ammatar Engineering Corps
#12 - 2014-01-21 03:10:36 UTC  |  Edited by: Katran Luftschreck
Billy McCandless wrote:
The Three Laws are:
A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
A robot must obey the orders given to it by human beings, except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law."


Unrelated: I always felt that the 2nd and 3rd law should switch places. I don't like the idea of an robot being forced to commit suicide just because some dumb redneck can't stand the idea that a machine is a hundred times smarter than him.


Vincent Athena wrote:
A blue wreck is still the property of the one who made it. As such shooting it calls CONCORD. The owner has given everyone permission to loot it, but in CONCORD's eyes its still his wreck. Irrelevant of wreck color, you can salvage without legal consequences.


Yeah, next time she should try shooting wrecks with Salvagers instead. Removes the wreck, doesn't call in CONCORD and might actually make her some ISK while she's at it.

Lol

http://youtu.be/t0q2F8NsYQ0
Hasikan Miallok
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#13 - 2014-01-21 03:30:41 UTC
Billy McCandless wrote:
Ashlar Maidstone wrote:
No complaining, ranting, or crying please
=======================================================================================
Any thoughts or ideas be appreciated.


The Three Laws are:
A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
A robot must obey the orders given to it by human beings, except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.

Asimov believed that, ideally, humans would also follow the Laws:
"I have my answer ready whenever someone asks me if I think that my Three Laws of Robotics will actually be used to govern the behavior of robots, once they become versatile and flexible enough to able to choose among different courses of behavior.
My answer is, "Yes, the Three Laws are the only way in which rational human beings can deal with robots—or with anything else."
—But when I say that, I always remember (sadly) that human beings are not always rational."


Well given with the obsession of the modern legal system with protection of property, especially corporate property (if you throw your girlfriend through a shop window you are more likely to get jail time for damaging the Window in many jurisdictions) , there in reality needs to be a 0th law above all the others saying "Where the robot is the property of an individual, company or other incorporated body the robot shall at all times protect its owners property rights above all else" .
Katran Luftschreck
Royal Ammatar Engineering Corps
#14 - 2014-01-21 05:49:10 UTC
Actually the "Zeroeth Law" was to protect the most humans as possible, even if it means sacrificing the few to save the many.

Of course, only one robot ever had that law.

http://youtu.be/t0q2F8NsYQ0
Liafcipe9000
Critically Preposterous
#15 - 2014-01-21 08:51:16 UTC
Inability to understand EVE, Case #1234567890987654321.
Billy McCandless
Zacharia Explorations Group
#16 - 2014-01-21 09:37:46 UTC
Hasikan Miallok wrote:


Well given with the obsession of the modern legal system with protection of property, especially corporate property (if you throw your girlfriend through a shop window you are more likely to get jail time for damaging the Window in many jurisdictions) , there in reality needs to be a 0th law above all the others saying "Where the robot is the property of an individual, company or other incorporated body the robot shall at all times protect its owners property rights above all else" .


That law would not be within the spirit, reason or concept of the others and would interfere with the protocols set by previous laws.

"Thread locked for being deemed a total loss." - ISD Ezwal
Angelica Dreamstar
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#17 - 2014-01-21 09:47:04 UTC
When something belongs to everybody, you believe you can destroy it and thus take it from everybody else?

bingo, his pig not being a goat doesn't make the pig wrong, just him an idiot for shouting at his pig "WHY ARENT YOU A GOAT!" (Source)

-- Ralph King-Griffin, about deranged people playing EVE ONLINE
Abdiel Kavash
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#18 - 2014-01-21 09:54:13 UTC  |  Edited by: Abdiel Kavash
Katran Luftschreck wrote:
Unrelated: I always felt that the 2nd and 3rd law should switch places. I don't like the idea of an robot being forced to commit suicide just because some dumb redneck can't stand the idea that a machine is a hundred times smarter than him.

This would mean that humans may not order robots to perform dangerous or even potentially destructive tasks. Hazardous materials handling is a prime example. You use robots precisely because the conditions are unsuitable for human beings, having a robot decline to work because it's too dangerous would defeat the point. And it may be in some cases necessary to sacrifice a robot to save an industry (but not necessarily human life).

I recall there being some explanation to prevent the "kill yourself" scenario given in one of the stories, but I don't remember the specifics. It had to do something with specifically defining what is and is not a valid order and who it can come from. Meaning that if you see a random robot passing by and just yell "kill yourself" at it, it doesn't interpret that as an order for the purpose of the second law.
seth Hendar
I love you miners
#19 - 2014-01-21 10:03:20 UTC
Unsuccessful At Everything wrote:
The safety button is not there so you cannot hurt others, it is there so people like you cannot hurt themselves.





yeah, pretty much like a 'don't try to stop the blade with your hand " on a chainsaw.

i still wondered why this was even necessary in the first place..........
Billy McCandless
Zacharia Explorations Group
#20 - 2014-01-21 10:06:12 UTC
seth Hendar wrote:
Unsuccessful At Everything wrote:
The safety button is not there so you cannot hurt others, it is there so people like you cannot hurt themselves.





yeah, pretty much like a 'don't try to stop the blade with your hand " on a chainsaw.

i still wondered why this was even necessary in the first place..........


It has drastically reduced Smartbomb-related fatalities in highsec

"Thread locked for being deemed a total loss." - ISD Ezwal
12Next page