Skip to content

Conversation

@Princess-Cheeseballs
Copy link
Member

Why?

No reason for it not to be public. I also updated the "current" salvage design doc to say it's been officially retracted per request of mirrorcult.

I'm going to be using my maints perms to merge this directly into the repo. The PR is here to ensure that I get all the files pushed at the same time.

A.

Added a retraction notice for the salvage proposal due to author concerns and lack of implementation plans.
@Princess-Cheeseballs Princess-Cheeseballs merged commit d48a286 into space-wizards:master Jan 30, 2026
4 checks passed
@EthanQix
Copy link

I agree with your conclusions, the main problem of Salvage is that it never had a coherent design, and features were added willy nilly based only on what would be fun for salvage players while completely ignoring what would be good for the station / the game as a whole.

Hopefully the department can be rebuilt from the ground up into something that is both.

@CollectionOfBones128
Copy link

I think this does nail some good aspects!

Giving science a crate full of goodies is an unparalleled feeling, exploring space is amazing, and the VGRoid has unmatched vibes. Plus, the first few times fighting Goliaths was a lot of fun, if the PvE enemies were designed better it'd be even greater!

And yeah, the job board goes against Salvage's set goal (get materials), forcing you to either abandon the task or double up your duties. I wish scrapping and mining instead just gave you progression points you could use to guarantee progression loot if your RNG was bad or something.
And wrecks kneecap the magnet too. Locks it down to a thing that doesn't help anyone.

I hope the amount of knowledge accrued over the last few months can see the rebirth of salvage, there are so many good or at least interesting ideas around.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants