EVE New Citizens Q&A

Specialized skills..that you can train in a day...That's not specialized. Also, linking statements concerning CCPs official standpoint(which were already linked and I already read, I suppose I should've replied) doesn't answer any of the concerns about whether or not this standpoint is justified, whether or not it should or should not be changed. When's the last time that dev's solely decided how gameplay in an mmo would be designed? I recall it being in the news about some changes CCP made in 2011 which the community was so outspoken against that they were redesigned, abruptly. My issue isn't nearly as, important, as whatever it was that got everyone upset about, I'm just pointing out how hollow and immaterial it is to hide behind those statements. If there's a good reason why the wrecks my actions are solely responsible for making possible shouldn't be mine I want to hear it but 'intended' isn't a reason, it's an excuse, and I don't care much for opinions which hide behind excuses or reasons with poor justification.

I don't understand this fascination with ill-gotten RL comparisons. You're talking about murdering someone for no reason, with no cause, to going on a mission, in an official capacity, against enemies of the state, and then saying you have claim to the spoils of it due to being the reason there's access to it. I just don't understand how or why you tried to compare this situation to that, it makes no sense, whatsoever....
I'm so confused, Guyz. Like, first someone tells me CCP wants to encourage teamplay, but now they're saying I can do better without someone in my team...like...was there a point somewhere here, other than that people can't seem to give any consistent reasons as to why I'm so obviously wrong...

I understand it quite well, and have plans to eventually be a part of that aspect, but what's at issue isn't the basic gameplay design, it's when and where to draw lines in it. If we follow this **** in peoples cornflakes philosophy then being able to steal from people missions shouldn't be limited to salvage, or should also extend to loot, as loot is really just something you salvage, it's simply 'intact' and easily salvaged, but there's a line drawn, because having that level of freedom causes unnecessary conflict and frustration, similar to what I'm feeling in this situation. I'm not disputing the gameplay design, nothing in my suggestion does prevents someone from stealing my loot or salvaging my wrecks, I'm simply asking for the immediate privilege of being able to take their **** and shove it right back down their throat instead of having to go to extreme measures to **** on them in retribution. No doubt I should go to Null eventually to release such infettered violence, but one month back into the game and barely flying a BC is hardly enough time to know enough to get there, and new players shouldn't be expected to do so.


Sigh. Then I'll make you aware of one SF book, which copies many of it's aspects from others, called Broken Angels, part of Richard K. Morgans Takeshi Kovacs series. You could even say it is a mirror of the Eve Universe, albeit one with greater depth and practicality and began in 2002 with the release of Altered Carbon.

I would have no problem with that. I in fact welcome it. All I want is that aspect of Eve, which I find fascinating, to apply to salvage. Is that really so much to ask?

I, as a player, in this game, my actions by accepting this mission and killing then npcs within it created those wrecks. That's not RP. That's my actions being the sole reason for there being anything to salvage, and by being the person whose efforts cause this, I have rights to receive the rewards of them. You're talking about existing game fiction, I'm talking about it not being in line with player actions and rewards and general guidelines for a great deal of SF, in order to illustrate the flaw within that fiction. So telling me the fiction with little to no justification for it doesn't substantiate why it should be there and more so seeing as it does not contest my claims that it's flawed and in need of revision.



I can't argue with that.

You're right I could go to lowsec and null right now to do missions and be smart about it. Or I could stay in highsec and get a decent amount of isk while I train with +4s to cut down the time needed to train so that I could get into PvP and Null more suited to that environment. That's my choice though, and having that choice is one of the reasons I like Eve.

They don't put anything truly at risk. They come in on cheap frigs and if they do take that risk, they lose very little, and will regain it soon enough due to there being nothing preventing them from continuing this behavior. Your point also completely ignores that many missions have multiple pockets and the risk to being detected by the mission runner is minimal, and definitely not proportional to the loss the mission runner would suffer.

In any case, I find it kind of funny that I'm being told the reasonbehind allowing someone to salvage my wrecks is bc they're 'floating pieces of junk'. They're not junk, that's the flaw within this lore. Whatever CCP intended with salvage, the player assigned value it has means it's not junk. It's as valuable an asset as the mission reward, and telling me game fiction calls it junk is the reason that someone is allowed to steal that value from me isn't a solid argument towards supporting that lore. It's an excuse, and excuses support nothing.



In that book a corporation lays claim to an item of interest by deploying a buoy to let everyone know who was there first, who made any form of recovery possible. I concede player interaction within missions is minimal, I also won't contest people the right to ninja things in my mission, I do want the risk to doing so be proportional to the value of what missions runners will lose due to being continually drained by these parasites and reprisal to be immediate rather than achieved through 2 accs, wardecs, or prohibitively expensive mercs. Something new players can be reasonably expected to do.

Just ask one of your lower standing friends or new corpies to come along and salvage for you as you mission. It's good money for newbies.

You...You do? why? EVE is not real life. You are not a hard e-worker working a 9-5 e-job. You are playing a videogame, and a videogame can have whatever the hell rules it wants. Players of a videogame are only entitled to play the game under the rules present. One of the rules of EVE online is that loot belongs to the killer, but the wreck does not.

If you go on the forums for Battlefield 3, Starcraft II, Dawn of War II, Civilization, or any other game, you never hear an argument about gameplay which amounts to "I deserve...". The only thing concerned in any debate on these forums is what would make the game better.

EVE is no different. It is a bigger game, with more varied content and more freedom to do as you please, and less clear distinctions between friend and foe, but it is still a videogame.



I already explained the current mechanics. They introduce player interaction into missions, which otherwise don't have any. There are ways to compete with ninjas, and you can win or you can lose.


If you enjoy PVE, I would highly recommend you try to get into WHs or Incursions or something else like that. They're far and away more well-designed than missions.




Well, it depends. When I ninja'd I did so in a pimped fleet stabber. I know people who ninja in dramiels. But yes, in general they are in rather cheap ships.

But yes, a good ninja doesn't have much risk, either because his ship is well-suited to surviving in missions, or because it's so cheap you don't care if you die. However, the missionrunner doesn't exactly have much risk, either. Running missions in hisec is about the least dangerous activity in EVE unless you're a brand-new player and don't know WTF you're doing...so, complaining that ninjas don't put themselves at risk doesn't really make much sense.

It's hisec. It's pretty damn safe.




Players have assigned value to it, but players don't determine what CONCORD policy does, CONCORD does. Your payment for completing the mission is the ISK/LP that the corp you mission for gives you (which is, by the way, not CONCORD). Running a mission has the cool side effect of giving you a bookmark to a field full of valuable things (some of which belong to you as per CONCORD's ruling, some of which don't), but it does not entitle you to them.



So there is an established system for claiming things which otherwise have no clear owner. That sounds exactly like EVE's wrecks, except instead of deploying a buoy you just have to grab it. Hell, if you want to 'claim' it you could salvage it and then jettison it in a can (which would allow you to shoot anyone who took from it). I'm not seeing the fundamental difference here.

And from a risk/reward perspective, as I said above, missioning isn't exactly any more risky than ninjasalvaging.


Also, level 4 missions (the only level of missions that intelligent ninjasalvagers would bother with) are not for new players. Level 4s are the top end of what a solo missionrunner can do. The only thing bigger is level 5s, which are in lowsec, and demand a group (or a cap ship, or some insanely expensive passive tanked boat).

I also suspect that this is why you see it as such a big loss of income. If you're a "new player", then you don't have the proper skills to be flying a battleship/BC and thus missions are going to take you forever - which means that loot/salvage make up a big proportion of your income.

I am always amazed by people who get into game that pretty much at every possible occasion says "you can kill, steal, scam and do bad things to other people's pixels but they can do the same to yours" and than they demand to be excluded from this core concept and all mechanics involved.

Salvaging wrecks is not stealing according to game mechanics, period. Accept it and either continue missioning or move on to other activities. Or grow a pair and be a ninja yourself, taking advantage of the very same rule that you are now crying about.

Asteroids exist because of my inaction (of not mining them out).
Therefore, any character attempting to mine from them should get aggro from me.

Belt rats spawn when I warp to a belt (due to my action).
Therefore, anyone attacking them should get aggro from me.

(this is how your argument sounds once you get over it)

Well, first off, almost all of the 'solutions' you've all given assume a single pocket mission, so giving solutions which are contingent upon that situation is hardly a solution.

People tell me to get a newbie to come along and salvage, what makes you think my corp is actively bringing in new players? Your solution assumes something which is no longer the case. The draft is over and all the 'newbs' are in similar situations as I am. I can't blame you for not having that information, but I do have to point out that solutions which do not always apply are not real solutions.

Then there's the comment on my attitude making it seem as if I'm too engrossed in Eve to make the differentiation between my efforts here and those IRL. To me this is nothing more than another attempt to derail from the real topic, trying to dismiss what I've said through not only irrelevant but completely inaccurate observations. To go from wanting game mechanics to change so that not only are my efforts IG rewarded, one of the very hallmarks of what makes MMOs addictive, but that I wish for it to also encompass one of the most appealing aspects of Eve, which is risk and reward due to player interaction and the absolution found within that conflict. The conflict which occurs currently with ninja salvaging has no meaning, no context to lead to some end which confronts and resolves the two opponents with any sort of finality. For a PvP centric game conflict resolution through force is the epitome of interaction within it.

Links to videos which describe the sandbox nature of Eve do little to say why my suggestion shouldn't be implemented. It does nothing to explain how changing ninja salvaging from simple griefing into a real conflict with consequences would take way from the sandbox, rather than improve it, expand the finality of conflict. If anything that causality video, which I was already familiar with as well as the other, supports what I'm suggesting. Player actions which produce conflict with a finality that goes beyond minor annoyances, which have little to no real impact, to something that can result in feuds, to situations like that found in causality. I'm not going to hold a grudge on some noobs who go around occasionally ninjaing my missions, but a noob who repeatly get's blown up might feel differently, better yet, a group of noobs in the same corp who make the mistake of trying to gang up on that mission runner only to find out the mission runner has friends nearby. Real conflict, conflict with absolution, conflict that goes beyond two people wasting each others time with simple griefing. That's what Eve is about right? That's what make's it so appealing, right?

Nowhere in my suggestion does it prevent ninjaing loot/salvage, it simply changes it from griefing to real conflict with consequences, which you seem to have completely ignored in your post.