Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 .. 18 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
Fullmetal Jackass
|
Posted - 2009.10.26 23:19:00 -
[271]
Fist off lets clear somthing up: Concord doesn't award anything. They only dictate who you can and can't shoot at without losing your ship.
Here we go with you all using circular logic again. All three of you just threw the same basic arguement...
NPCs own the wrecks not you. The NPCs are dead so nobody owns the wrecks. Concord says no player owns the wrecks because they belongs to the NPCs.
Say what?
Since the NPC is dead and thier corp is unable to or unwilling to claim the leftovers, ownership would fall to whatever empire owns the space. Said empire can do whatever they want with the left overs. The empires have no interest in left over modules or salavagable components so they award them to the mission runner or whoever blew up the NPC ship.
Apperently Concord is off doing it's own thing. Maybe the 4 empires should cut thier funding since Concord is oversteping thier bounds.
|
Kahega Amielden
Minmatar Suddenly Ninjas
|
Posted - 2009.10.26 23:52:00 -
[272]
Quote: Fist off lets clear somthing up: Concord doesn't award anything. They only dictate who you can and can't shoot at without losing your ship.
Correct. CONCORD has determined that people can defend the module/ammo loot from a wreck in their mission, but not the wreck itself.
Quote: Since the NPC is dead and thier corp is unable to or unwilling to claim the leftovers, ownership would fall to whatever empire owns the space. Said empire can do whatever they want with the left overs. The empires have no interest in left over modules or salavagable components so they award them to the mission runner or whoever blew up the NPC ship.
Wait a minute. Did you just tell us what the empires award the missionrunner? What's your reference for this?
|
Fullmetal Jackass
|
Posted - 2009.10.27 00:21:00 -
[273]
Edited by: Fullmetal Jackass on 27/10/2009 00:26:48
Originally by: Kahega Amielden
Quote: Since the NPC is dead and thier corp is unable to or unwilling to claim the leftovers, ownership would fall to whatever empire owns the space. Said empire can do whatever they want with the left overs. The empires have no interest in left over modules or salavagable components so they award them to the mission runner or whoever blew up the NPC ship.
Wait a minute. Did you just tell us what the empires award the missionrunner? What's your reference for this?
Yes I did. This is all from an RP standpoint, since that's were you all seem to justify ninja slavaging from, but yes the empires award the leftovers. Who else would determine ownership of an item in thier sovereign space? An item the original owner can no longer claim. Certainly not concord. That'd be like the UN dictating law to your country.
Original owner - no longer vaild Local government (Empire) - doesn't want it ???????
Who's left to claim the leftovers? It certainly wouldn't be FFA, governments don't work like that. So it would probably fall to whichever corp issued the mission. They turn everything they don't claim in their contract over to the mission runner. Several contracts state "We want X item. The rest you can do with as you please."
|
Fullmetal Jackass
|
Posted - 2009.10.27 07:30:00 -
[274]
In summary:
NPCs can't or wont claim leftovers. Players can lay claim to leftovers.
|
Lear Hepburn
Caldari Ascendant Strategies Inc. The Transcendent
|
Posted - 2009.10.27 07:56:00 -
[275]
Edited by: Lear Hepburn on 27/10/2009 07:58:21
Originally by: Fullmetal Jackass In summary:
NPCs can't or wont claim leftovers. Players can lay claim to leftovers.
Nicely put.
Now explain why that claim should be legal for one player and not for another, given that the governments "don't care" about the salvage. Why would they back up one person's claim over another if they "don't care"?
|
Fullmetal Jackass
|
Posted - 2009.10.27 08:14:00 -
[276]
Did you read all of post 263? Yes? Read it again. Still confused? Point out the disconnect and I'll try to clarify.
|
Robert Caldera
|
Posted - 2009.10.27 10:09:00 -
[277]
Edited by: Robert Caldera on 27/10/2009 10:16:17
Originally by: Fullmetal Jackass
Here we go with you all using circular logic again. All three of you just threw the same basic arguement...
NPCs own the wrecks not you. The NPCs are dead so nobody owns the wrecks. Concord says no player owns the wrecks because they belongs to the NPCs.
there is no circular logic. Point 1 and 3 are the same, point 2 is plain wrong, the wrecks are owned by the dead NPC or its faction. If you die, your stuff will certainly to to your mom, not your government.
Originally by: Fullmetal Jackass
Since the NPC is dead and thier corp is unable to or unwilling to claim the leftovers, ownership would fall to whatever empire owns the space. Said empire can do whatever they want with the left overs. The empires have no interest in left over modules or salavagable components so they award them to the mission runner or whoever blew up the NPC ship.
Apperently Concord is off doing it's own thing. Maybe the 4 empires should cut thier funding since Concord is oversteping thier bounds.
like I pointed out many times, your whole argumentation about empires, concord, your contractor or whatever, is simply wrong because the said mechanic is also valid where its simply not applicable, in 0.0 or for belt rats for example, where you currently still own the NPC loot without being contracted by any party or another empire or authority around you. Since the questionable mechanic is implemented for all spaces, it cant be because of awarding empire someone for somewhat.
Originally by: Fullmetal Jackass
Originally by: Kahega Amielden
Quote: Since the NPC is dead and thier corp is unable to or unwilling to claim the leftovers, ownership would fall to whatever empire owns the space. Said empire can do whatever they want with the left overs. The empires have no interest in left over modules or salavagable components so they award them to the mission runner or whoever blew up the NPC ship.
Wait a minute. Did you just tell us what the empires award the missionrunner? What's your reference for this?
Yes I did. This is all from an RP standpoint, since that's were you all seem to justify ninja slavaging from, but yes the empires award the leftovers. Who else would determine ownership of an item in thier sovereign space? An item the original owner can no longer claim. Certainly not concord. That'd be like the UN dictating law to your country.
Original owner - no longer vaild Local government (Empire) - doesn't want it ???????
Who's left to claim the leftovers? It certainly wouldn't be FFA, governments don't work like that. So it would probably fall to whichever corp issued the mission. They turn everything they don't claim in their contract over to the mission runner. Several contracts state "We want X item. The rest you can do with as you please." If it's not stated it's by tacit agreement.
Concord has no say and no stake in "leftover" ownership and is clearly oversteping thier bounds.
In null sec it's even eaiser. Whoever holds the field, gets everything. But we're mostly talking empire space, which is both high and low sec.
see above, all your argument about empire is invalid because the said mechanic is implemented for any space, even where no empires are. Dont try to evade this by lapidary saying in 0.0 is all much easier, yes, it is but its not the point, the point is the ownership mechanic, which is implemented for rewarding the NPC-killer by empires as you say, is actually valid where no empires are. This fail argumentation should be obvious enough for you to understand now. Stuff still belongs to the dead NPC or his faction as next, but not to any other party, the implemented loot ownership logics are faulty and should be changed.
All your attempts to justify why you should own other parties stuff is just ridiculous.
|
Fullmetal Jackass
|
Posted - 2009.10.27 10:55:00 -
[278]
Game mechanics are game mechanics. Form follows function.
My logic is sound regardless of game implementation. Game mechanics are what we are trying to get changed.
|
Fullmetal Jackass
|
Posted - 2009.10.27 11:08:00 -
[279]
Edited by: Fullmetal Jackass on 27/10/2009 11:10:47 NPCs own the wrecks not you. The NPCs are dead so nobody owns the wrecks. Concord says no player owns the wrecks because they belongs to the NPCs. (Who are dead) NPCs own the wrecks not you. The NPCs are dead so nobody owns the wrecks. Concord says no player owns the wrecks because they belongs to the NPCs. (Who are dead) NPCs own the wrecks not you. The NPCs are dead so nobody owns the wrecks. Concord says no player owns the wrecks because they belongs to the NPCs. (Who are dead)
looks circular to me.
|
Robert Caldera
|
Posted - 2009.10.27 11:33:00 -
[280]
Edited by: Robert Caldera on 27/10/2009 11:33:48 NPCs own the wrecks not you. The NPCs are dead so nobody owns the wrecks. <---- fail here Concord says no player owns the wrecks because they belongs to the NPCs. (Who are dead) NPCs own the wrecks not you. The NPCs are dead so nobody owns the wrecks. Concord says no player owns the wrecks because they belongs to the NPCs. (Who are dead) NPCs own the wrecks not you. The NPCs are dead so nobody owns the wrecks. Concord says no player owns the wrecks because they belongs to the NPCs. (Who are dead)
|
|
Fullmetal Jackass
|
Posted - 2009.10.27 11:55:00 -
[281]
Edited by: Fullmetal Jackass on 27/10/2009 12:01:39
I agree, it is fail, but it's not my logic.
Incidentally, you seem like a guy who can't stand losing. Why do you choose to defend such weak positions?
|
Lear Hepburn
Caldari Ascendant Strategies Inc. The Transcendent
|
Posted - 2009.10.27 18:35:00 -
[282]
Originally by: Fullmetal Jackass Did you read all of post 263? Yes? Read it again. Still confused? Point out the disconnect and I'll try to clarify.
Yes, I read it. The "disconnect" is the number of unsubstantiated assumptions you make. For example:
Quote: Who's left to claim the leftovers? It certainly wouldn't be FFA, governments don't work like that. So it would probably fall to whichever corp issued the mission. They turn everything they don't claim in their contract over to the mission runner. Several contracts state "We want X item. The rest you can do with as you please." If it's not stated it's by tacit agreement.
You claim that ownership probably falls to the corp (reference?) which turns it over to the MR (reference?). I know that several contracts explicitly state that you can do whatever you please with the rest of the loot, but they don't explicitly state salvage. And "tacit agreements" aren't worth the code they're not written in ;)
|
Lear Hepburn
Caldari Ascendant Strategies Inc. The Transcendent
|
Posted - 2009.10.27 18:45:00 -
[283]
Originally by: Fullmetal Jackass So if a pirate dies comitting a crime, his ship chunks, from a ship loaned to him by his outlaw corp, go to his momma? Ship chunks his corp can't claim because they are in empire space under my guns, I'll add.
Correct. And if the salvage is caught in my salvage beam then you can't take it from me either. Feel free to shoot though ;)
|
Markus Reese
Caldari Lorentzian Expeditionaries
|
Posted - 2009.10.27 18:58:00 -
[284]
Getting a bit off topic here. The main issue is the differentiation that occurs between loot and the salvage, hence the issue of ninja salvage. The legalities of eve rp wise is not much of a deal, ie what in RL allows one corporation to declare war on another if all they have to do is pay a fee?
Point being, why is there a line drawn between a module, and the wiring for said module, they come from one ship, all part of one unit. Just one you can unbolt, the other needs to be cut out of the wreck.
Eve has one premice, might is right, the tougher and bigger and better get the money. The problem with ninja salvage is I could be a first gen eve player with an officer fit everything. Despite that, I have no way to muscle on the salvage if I want it other than to ninja from somebody else. If salvage was flagging, might would be right again. People looking for a fight already do, they take something from a wreck. To extrapolate that, remove the tractor lockout on them and cans, might is right again. Don't go walking through the ghetto at two am if you cannot defend yourself, ie stay out of ninja space.
Poor people who have an interest in honest salvaging. Make a salvage boat, give it the ability to scan a wreck field out, they can salvage all happy the massive amounts of L4 missions that me and my buddies leave. To remove flag, person leaves, wrecks become claimable. Fair, just and balanced.
|
Dacryphile
|
Posted - 2009.10.27 20:41:00 -
[285]
If you want a more survival of the fittest environment then take criminal flags away from all stealing. If you don't want it stolen, then get it into your cargo hold before anyone else.
|
Markus Reese
Caldari Lorentzian Expeditionaries
|
Posted - 2009.10.28 02:40:00 -
[286]
Alas, that would take away from the brute force issue, or one can start running missions in a badger I guess :s
|
WuChiJIanRen
|
Posted - 2009.10.28 03:32:00 -
[287]
Anything from sansha,angel,gruistas or anything else do not belong to you : They belong to Concord or empires(just like if you got a outlaw you can not grab everything from him).Now, they grant you some cans from these outlaws and grant wrecks to anyone who can pick him.It's their choice.If you don't satisfied with that,simplely don't hunt pirates,nobody force you to do so
|
c0depoint
|
Posted - 2009.10.28 05:54:00 -
[288]
CCP: Working as intended.
What part of this do you not understand? It will not be changed; there is no use in debating it.
|
Fullmetal Jackass
|
Posted - 2009.10.28 08:32:00 -
[289]
Originally by: Lear Hepburn Yes, I read it. The "disconnect" is the number of unsubstantiated assumptions you make. For example:
Quote: Who's left to claim the leftovers? It certainly wouldn't be FFA, governments don't work like that. So it would probably fall to whichever corp issued the mission. They turn everything they don't claim in their contract over to the mission runner. Several contracts state "We want X item. The rest you can do with as you please." If it's not stated it's by tacit agreement.
You claim that ownership probably falls to the corp (reference?) which turns it over to the MR (reference?). I know that several contracts explicitly state that you can do whatever you please with the rest of the loot, but they don't explicitly state salvage. If the corp doesn't have pwnership of the salvage then they can't very well transfer rights to you, can they?
There you go playing sea lawyer. We're talking RP justification of game mechnics based on backstory and RL precedent. There's no eve law book. You're trying to overcomplicate a simple issue.
If a battle took place inside the boarders of your country, who would claim all the functioning and non functioning equipment? Your government. They'd take it for use, study, or sell it off for scrap. The central governments of the empires in Eve don't care about ship leftovers. The mega corps are the next step in the government, this is backed by cannon. They would lay claim to anything they thought had worth. They're greedy like that. But why bother to collect a bunch of equipment they have no use for, when they can just turn it over to thier merc as part of his payment? Quite a few mission descriptions state exactly this. Loot has always worked this way. Standard operationg procedure has been long established. Unless stated otherwise, the wreckage of defeated ships becomes the property of the mission runner by tacit agreement.
There is no actual contract of course. It's a game, mechanics just need a plausable explanation. There's more then enough to support salvage component ownership.
-----
Originally by: Lear Hepburn And "tacit agreements" aren't worth the code they're not written in ;)
If there is a normal opperating procedure, it's assumed to be in effect unless otherwise stated. If you don't disagree with the norm, you've given tacit agreement. Look it up. -----
Originally by: Lear Hepburn
Originally by: Fullmetal Jackass So if a pirate dies comitting a crime, his ship chunks, from a ship loaned to him by his outlaw corp, go to his momma? Ship chunks his corp can't claim because they are in empire space under my guns, I'll add.
Correct. And if the salvage is caught in my salvage beam then you can't take it from me either. Feel free to shoot though ;)
I call BS. Yer just bein purposely obtuse again. The ship belonged to an outlaw corp. It was used in a crime. Anyone sent to claim the pieces would be arrested, and unable to even make a claim of ownership. Any one of these is grounds for forfeiture of ownership. It wouldn't go to the pilots mom.
|
Fullmetal Jackass
|
Posted - 2009.10.28 08:56:00 -
[290]
Originally by: Markus Reese Getting a bit off topic here. The main issue is the differentiation that occurs between loot and the salvage, hence the issue of ninja salvage. The legalities of eve rp wise is not much of a deal, ie what in RL allows one corporation to declare war on another if all they have to do is pay a fee?
Point being, why is there a line drawn between a module, and the wiring for said module, they come from one ship, all part of one unit. Just one you can unbolt, the other needs to be cut out of the wreck.
Eve has one premice, might is right, the tougher and bigger and better get the money. The problem with ninja salvage is I could be a first gen eve player with an officer fit everything. Despite that, I have no way to muscle on the salvage if I want it other than to ninja from somebody else. If salvage was flagging, might would be right again. People looking for a fight already do, they take something from a wreck. To extrapolate that, remove the tractor lockout on them and cans, might is right again. Don't go walking through the ghetto at two am if you cannot defend yourself, ie stay out of ninja space.
Poor people who have an interest in honest salvaging. Make a salvage boat, give it the ability to scan a wreck field out, they can salvage all happy the massive amounts of L4 missions that me and my buddies leave. To remove flag, person leaves, wrecks become claimable. Fair, just and balanced.
You're right it's slightly off topic. Being as Eve is a futuristic sci-fi RPG combat spaceship sim, with a full immersive universe to support it, I'd say not too far off. I totally agree that the issue is dropped modules vs recoverable components. It should be a non-issue. It all comes from the same source. It all has value. Therefor it's all loot. I also agree that might is right. In the case of NPC corporations, thier wealth. In the case of players, thier firepower.
The ninja salvager crowd insists that it's an RP legal issue though, so I reason on that level. There is a plausible explanation for the legality of paying for a war. Rich mega corps more or less run the governments. The governments wrote the agreement that concord enforces. If it's in a corporations interest to go to direct war with another, they pay concord a fee to validate the conflict, and it's now a sanctioned military conflict.
Is it right? Is it moral? Is it ethical? No. But eve is a ****ed up universe. It's writen that way. The government supports the corporations and enforces thier order. So why would the police protect anyone disrupting thier operations? Governments don't support anarchy. They support the ruling body. In the case of eve, the rich corporations that are issueing contracts to pod pilots.
|
|
Lear Hepburn
Caldari Ascendant Strategies Inc. The Transcendent
|
Posted - 2009.10.28 16:26:00 -
[291]
Originally by: Fullmetal Jackass There you go playing sea lawyer. We're talking RP justification of game mechnics based on backstory and RL precedent. There's no eve law book. You're trying to overcomplicate a simple issue.
If a battle took place inside the boarders of your country, who would claim all the functioning and non functioning equipment? Your government. They'd take it for use, study, or sell it off for scrap. The central governments of the empires in Eve don't care about ship leftovers. The mega corps are the next step in the government, this is backed by cannon. They would lay claim to anything they thought had worth. They're greedy like that. But why bother to collect a bunch of equipment they have no use for, when they can just turn it over to thier merc as part of his payment? Quite a few mission descriptions state exactly this. Loot has always worked this way. Standard operationg procedure has been long established. Unless stated otherwise, the wreckage of defeated ships becomes the property of the mission runner by tacit agreement.
There is no actual contract of course. It's a game, mechanics just need a plausable explanation. There's more then enough to support salvage component ownership.
Well so long as you admit that you're simply making it up then that's fine. It holds as much water as any made-up, fluff reason though (i.e. none)
Quote: If there is a normal opperating procedure, it's assumed to be in effect unless otherwise stated. If you don't disagree with the norm, you've given tacit agreement. Look it up.
There is no norm. Like I said, salvage is not explicitly stated so any "norm" you are referring to is simply based on your own fluff.
Quote: I call BS. Yer just bein purposely obtuse again. The ship belonged to an outlaw corp. It was used in a crime. Anyone sent to claim the pieces would be arrested, and unable to even make a claim of ownership. Any one of these is grounds for forfeiture of ownership. It wouldn't go to the pilots mom.
You can call Dreadnaught if you like (see what I did there?), it doesn't make it so. Given that you are also trying to claim the pieces why aren't you arrested? Or are you saying that vigilanitsm (because that's what this is) allows you to claim the stuff belonging to the perp?
|
Fullmetal Jackass
|
Posted - 2009.10.29 02:01:00 -
[292]
I'm not making it up. I'm going off of real life example as it would fit into the established fiction of the Eve universe. It's called precedent. Look it up.
Salavage hasn't be long established. Especially with the rate of change in this game. Wrecks started with ownership. They still have ownership. It's the flagging mechanic that got broken. You're twisting words. status quo and tacit agreement don't apply to current salavage mechanics.
The most certainly is a norm. The "loot" from wrecks, meaning anything and everything of value has always been considered to belong to the mission runner. It's only since they added salvagable components (which are also loot) that there has been a question, and that question only came up after they broke the flag. Again, twisting words. "your red is my new blue" yeah, not really basis for anything.
I think CCP's finally gotten the idea anyway, so play whatever games you like, it wont matter. Loot mechanics are already gettin changed.
|
Brechan Skene
|
Posted - 2009.10.29 03:46:00 -
[293]
Originally by: Fullmetal Jackass
I think CCP's finally gotten the idea anyway, so play whatever games you like, it wont matter. Loot mechanics are already gettin changed.
So what do you think they are changing?
|
Markus Reese
Caldari Lorentzian Expeditionaries
|
Posted - 2009.10.29 04:22:00 -
[294]
Originally by: c0depoint CCP: Working as intended.
What part of this do you not understand? It will not be changed; there is no use in debating it.
Meaning that it is not an exploit. I do not see, working how we want the results to be therefore do not suggest improvements. If an idea that many players and ccp sees as a way that "Ah, that is worth our time to developing and will add a new dynamic to that part of game play." That is what we are after. Making it from a secondary part, because with rigs now being for everything, it is a very major part of gameplay and economy.
|
Navell Phora
|
Posted - 2009.10.29 06:47:00 -
[295]
1) for a mission runner to get rights to the loot but not salvage is plain illogical and stupid. it should be both or neither. 2) ninja salvaging is stealing. Just because ccp has made the decision not to allow MR to shoot to protect his salvage doesn't mean it is not stealing. Just like corp scams and such are stealing even if they isn't any concord reaction to it. 3) ninja salvaging is 100% safe. Mission running is not. Just like a ns can lose her ship in recon just as well the MR can. There are difficult missions where losing ships is easy if you kill the triggers in wrong order and get over whelmed with dps and scrambled. Replacing a mission ship is expensive and takes much longer to recover from than a ninja ship. If time is isk, ninja has nothing to lose. 4) newbies don't need that much money in the beginning. I started in eve by doing missions and after the first couple of L1 missions I was swimming in isk despite flying a poorly fitted merlin with combined shield/armor tank. 5) ninja salvaging makes eve less social place. By allowing ninja salvaging to be totally safe ccp has also made the decision that hi sec needs to be totally safe. Instead of calculated risks and some pvp to agress and protect there is only care bearing. If ninja salvaging had danger you'd have support fleets and better chance of pewpew. You would need friends and having friends makes eve better. Ninjas is counter productive to that. 6) by allowing ninja salvaging ccp has created just another new breed of care bears. Because salvaging wrecks does not flag you it also works counter productive to pvp. Flagging would allow pvp to happen and it would introduce risk into both participants careers. The mission runner had bigger chance of losing his ship. Ninja salvager would have access to bigger isk through loot and could also do the salvaging quicker due to wrecks being compatible with tractor beams. 7) ninja salvaging could work as a great stepping stone into real pvp. You are using the same skills and flying same ships. You learn to probe ships down, learn to deal with agression and learn to choose your battles. 8) it is beneficial to eve to allow more risks in hi sec. Ninja salvaging can be a great tool but you must allow pvp. Ninjas can make mission running more dangerous and if the mission runner doesn't want to fight the ninja gets good pay. 9) ninjas want no change to current situation because they are in complete safety at the moment.
Having the loot non-flagged does not really work. How do you arrange 1vs1 fights if there is no can flipping? Can flipping is good for both participants, be those participants a miner and a pirate, a griefer and a newbie or mission runner and a ninja. The pirate gets the kill, the miner may get to keep his materials, the griefer gets a hard on and the newbie learns a lesson. Mission runner gets a chance for pewpew and ninja learns pvp.
Ninja salvaging can be a real profession in even and instead of new breed of care bears we would have more pvpers.
|
Lear Hepburn
Caldari Ascendant Strategies Inc. The Transcendent
|
Posted - 2009.10.29 07:14:00 -
[296]
Originally by: Navell Phora Ninja salvaging can be a real profession in even and instead of new breed of care bears we would have more pvpers.
Given that ninja salvaging only works in this way in hisec where the carebears are anyway, "stealing" from those same carebears, I find this very funny!
|
Lear Hepburn
Caldari Ascendant Strategies Inc. The Transcendent
|
Posted - 2009.10.29 07:21:00 -
[297]
Edited by: Lear Hepburn on 29/10/2009 07:21:51
Originally by: Fullmetal Jackass I'm not making it up. I'm going off of real life example as it would fit into the established fiction of the Eve universe. It's called precedent. Look it up.
A precedent from real life? That works in a game
Quote: Salavage hasn't be long established. Especially with the rate of change in this game. Wrecks started with ownership. They still have ownership. It's the flagging mechanic that got broken. You're twisting words. status quo and tacit agreement don't apply to current salavage mechanics.
Your broken mechanic is my intentional one - you're twisting words too, so enough with the hypocrisy there please. Why do you get to say where status quo and tacit agreement apply? Surely that's CCP's job? Oh, I forgot, "daddy said so" isn't an argument - unless you say it is, right?
Quote: The most certainly is a norm. The "loot" from wrecks, meaning anything and everything of value has always been considered to belong to the mission runner. It's only since they added salvagable components (which are also loot) that there has been a question, and that question only came up after they broke the flag. Again, twisting words. "your red is my new blue" yeah, not really basis for anything.
Twisting the meaning of the word loot there. We all know that loot comes in cans. Salvageable components are not loot until they are salvaged.
Quote: I think CCP's finally gotten the idea anyway, so play whatever games you like, it wont matter. Loot mechanics are already gettin changed.
Link?
|
Navell Phora
|
Posted - 2009.10.29 07:21:00 -
[298]
Originally by: Lear Hepburn
Originally by: Navell Phora Ninja salvaging can be a real profession in even and instead of new breed of care bears we would have more pvpers.
Given that ninja salvaging only works in this way in hisec where the carebears are anyway, "stealing" from those same carebears, I find this very funny!
So you are against pvp in hi sec?
|
Lear Hepburn
Caldari Ascendant Strategies Inc. The Transcendent
|
Posted - 2009.10.29 07:28:00 -
[299]
Originally by: Navell Phora
Originally by: Lear Hepburn
Originally by: Navell Phora Ninja salvaging can be a real profession in even and instead of new breed of care bears we would have more pvpers.
Given that ninja salvaging only works in this way in hisec where the carebears are anyway, "stealing" from those same carebears, I find this very funny!
So you are against pvp in hi sec?
Not at all. I am against protecting carebear mission-runners and their overinflated hisec soloed level 4 profits. Ninja salvaging hits their wallets, and that hurts them, as evidenced by the whining seen here. One thing they seem totally unwilling to do is move to losec in order to be able to defend those profits though - odd, no?
|
Navell Phora
|
Posted - 2009.10.29 07:41:00 -
[300]
Originally by: Lear Hepburn
Originally by: Navell Phora
Originally by: Lear Hepburn
Originally by: Navell Phora Ninja salvaging can be a real profession in even and instead of new breed of care bears we would have more pvpers.
Given that ninja salvaging only works in this way in hisec where the carebears are anyway, "stealing" from those same carebears, I find this very funny!
So you are against pvp in hi sec?
Not at all. I am against protecting carebear mission-runners and their overinflated hisec soloed level 4 profits.
To me that's a yes. If ninjas could be attacked there is the chance of ninja going to get his pvp ship and coming back. If mission runner had retrieved his pvp ship as well all would be perfect imho. The current system doesn't allow this to happen.
Mission runners don't use scrams so it is quite easy for the ninja to escape. If anything the risk is on the mission runner's side. In other words the risk on mission runners side would increase but with no chance of more profit. For ninjas there would be increased risk for and more isk. Isk for risk! The end result would be more pvp in hi sec. By being against ninja agression you are also against pvp in hi sec. Simple.
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 .. 18 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |