Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 .. 25 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Lady Spank
Amarr Trillionaire High-Rollers Suicidal Bassoon Orkesta
|
Posted - 2011.04.24 17:18:00 -
[271]
Originally by: Mister Rocknrolla
Quickest fix in my opinion is to remove wreck/loot "ownership" altogether.
All wrecks "blue.". That simple fix would cure all supposed issues.
The concept that somehow a can or a wreck knows who created is irrational on it's face.
This is how it was originally and carebears cried that people were able to steal their loot with no repercussions. Look what happened when they introduced can ownership and flipping aggression
|
Bienator II
|
Posted - 2011.04.24 19:43:00 -
[272]
lets do it this way: - mission(!) wrecks have no ownership - all ships entering the mission are outlaws to the missioners since concord sees them as collateral damage in context of the mission objective
|
Mintala Arana
Amarr
|
Posted - 2011.04.24 20:09:00 -
[273]
Originally by: Bienator II lets do it this way: - mission(!) wrecks have no ownership - all ships entering the mission are outlaws to the missioners since concord sees them as collateral damage in context of the mission objective
Personally, I'd prefer it if ninja salvagers were flagged for aggression, just like people stealing from cans. Then mission runners could shoot at them without the wrath of CONCORD descending upon them.
Lots of dyed in the wool carebears seem to want that, so it would be humorous (and just) if CCP were to give it to them.
|
Jon Taggart
State War Academy
|
Posted - 2011.04.24 20:29:00 -
[274]
Rather amusing that the OP basically dropped out of this thread after page 1.
Kudos to Tippia for keeping it going though. Should teach Arguing 101 or something. School some of these kids.
IB4 - 0/10, troll, yadda yadda.
I'm not an alt |
Mortania
Minmatar Sebiestor Tribe
|
Posted - 2011.04.24 20:52:00 -
[275]
Hmm, I was just going to come in and give it a 10/10 for 10 pages. But, apparently I'm too late.
|
HeIIfire11
|
Posted - 2011.04.24 21:16:00 -
[276]
Originally by: Tippia
Originally by: HeIIfire11 I didn't say it wasn't a PVP game.
Yes you did: In response to me calling it a PvP-centric game, you said ôNo,it's a sandbox.ö.
Exactly a sandbox..which includes but doesn't limit it to pvp just like I said.
Originally by: Tippia
Originally by: HeIIfire11 I didn't say that [you can't roam for salvage]
Yes you did: ôThe player is scanned and not the wrecks which rules out roaming for wrecks lol.ö.
Yea I said the player is scanned and not the wrecks.Why would that rule out anything?Stop putting words in my mouth.You can roam by flying from belt to belt or roam by checking out ded plexes but what we are currently talking about has nothing to do with roaming in my opinion.
Originally by: Tippia
Originally by: HeIIfire11 Salvaging is really risky for mission runners, but not for salvagers.
You said that by saying that it was unfair that there was no risk for the salvager ù an unfairness I questioned by asking ôwhy should he risk something when the competitor doesn't risk anything either?ö, to which you answered ôGod you're ignorantöà which can only mean that there is some immense risk for the mission runner (otherwise it wouldn't be unfair, nor would asking where the unfairness lies be ignorant).
It's ignorant because I explained it to you already and you chose not to accept it.What I explained to you once and didn't want to explain again is that the mission runner has enough risk doing the mission,more than the salvager has getting the salvage.So "what it could only mean"is your opinion in that case.And who is it thats getting shot at when the salvager flies in?The mission runner.Hence the riisk.The salvager isn't touched by an npc or by the mission runner because he's protected by concord.
Originally by: Tippia àgranted, when asked, you chose not to specify what this huge risk was. Perhaps because no such risk actually exists?)
I just did specify.Above.
Originally by: Tippia
Originally by: HeIIfire11 [Dev statements on salvaging] don't address the issue with the wrecks being yellow and having the mission runners corp name on it which causes the disagreement.They also don't address why you can't warp to wrecks instead of players when the system is most likely full with blue wrecks that will be wasted in two hours time.
The problem is that you claim the quotes are worthless and that they don't ôaddress any of the topics mentioned in this thread.ö This is blatantly false. They address the the core topic of the thread ù just not your particular points.
Which again is exactly what I said lol.Nice try turning the words around in my mouth.This is what you always start when you hit a dead end in a thread.You go back and see if you turn what people said to your advantage because you have no arguments left. I'll tell you what,I'm not going to give you that chance this time because unlike you I don't always need to be right.Look at all your lame responses like "why" or "not good enough" or "why not" that you posted just for the sake of answering the post and having the last word on the matter.I'm not even going to start on those which are the same reasons why I called you ignorant.You don't accept what is being said but continue to ask the same questions over and over again.When people then try to explain it to you in different ways you start on how they are contradicting themselves lol.Pointless as I said before.You are not here to discuss the topic but to beat your opinion into someones head by turning everything how you like it.Not one statement on how to make it better but just how its perfect because ccp says so.Even though it's perfectly clear that it's not perfect,nor do you have a clue as to what technical limitations ccp has.You're just defending the line of bull**** they feed the public.That..to me is a fanboy.period.
|
HeIIfire11
|
Posted - 2011.04.24 21:21:00 -
[277]
Originally by: Jon Taggart Rather amusing that the OP basically dropped out of this thread after page 1.
Kudos to Tippia for keeping it going though. Should teach Arguing 101 or something. School some of these kids.
IB4 - 0/10, troll, yadda yadda.
He didn't keep anything going.It's funny though how many fanboys he has that don't have enough brains to have their own opinion.What was the point of your post?To come in here and show everyone that you can't write more than three lines of random crap?Good job.
|
Jon Taggart
State War Academy
|
Posted - 2011.04.24 22:07:00 -
[278]
Originally by: HeIIfire11
Originally by: Jon Taggart Rather amusing that the OP basically dropped out of this thread after page 1.
Kudos to Tippia for keeping it going though. Should teach Arguing 101 or something. School some of these kids.
IB4 - 0/10, troll, yadda yadda.
He didn't keep anything going.It's funny though how many fanboys he has that don't have enough brains to have their own opinion.What was the point of your post?To come in here and show everyone that you can't write more than three lines of random crap?Good job.
Hey if you want to attack random people who post I should be afforded the same luxury.
I'm not an alt |
Katra Novac
|
Posted - 2011.04.24 22:16:00 -
[279]
Originally by: Amarraz If they're salvaging wrecks in mission, the wrecks I created, then that should be stealing, I should be allowed to respond.
Totally agree, might make it more entertaining too.
|
Corina's Bodyguard
|
Posted - 2011.04.25 03:01:00 -
[280]
The problem with making wrecks salvaged flaggable is that it kills the salvaging profession (as it is currently not possible to scan wrecks). It however makes the griefer profession (is that even a legit one haha) get a major buff.
IF CCP found out a way to group wrecks so that when we scanned a system like Motsu we wouldn't get over 500 signatures, then I would not be strongly opposed to making wrecks owned (though CCP would never do this because their opinion is clear on wreck ownership...).
|
|
Emperor Salazar
Caldari Remote Soviet Industries
|
Posted - 2011.04.25 03:56:00 -
[281]
Why is this thread on 10 pages
|
Adacia Calla
Minmatar Firebird Squadron Terra-Incognita
|
Posted - 2011.04.25 04:26:00 -
[282]
Don't run missions in Dodixie.
Problem solved.
|
Mintala Arana
Amarr
|
Posted - 2011.04.25 04:28:00 -
[283]
Originally by: Corina's Bodyguard The problem with making wrecks salvaged flaggable is that it kills the salvaging profession (as it is currently not possible to scan wrecks). It however makes the griefer profession (is that even a legit one haha) get a major buff.
I doubt that it would have much of an effect, tbh. Sure, occasionally a mission runner might take a shot at a "ninja" (which would add a certain je ne sais quoi to that initial warp-in), but for the most part, they'll be just as afraid of someone who's flashy red for salvaging as they are today of someone who's flashy red for stealing from a wreck. After all, if a mission runner takes a shot at a ninja, that ninja might just have a big scary gankship right over there in the next station, waiting for opportunity to knock. And some friends with logistics ships, probably.
|
3uph0ria
|
Posted - 2011.04.25 04:34:00 -
[284]
Originally by: Emperor Salazar Why is this thread on 10 pages
This thread pops up all the time and reaches multiple pages every time. Good number of people must be unhappy with ninja salvaging mechanics or it wouldn't.
|
Renarla
|
Posted - 2011.04.25 04:44:00 -
[285]
I like how the carebears don't realize that the salvagers would actually love it if they got what they wanted here.
|
ShahFluffers
Ice Fire Warriors
|
Posted - 2011.04.25 06:38:00 -
[286]
Edited by: ShahFluffers on 25/04/2011 06:41:51
Jesus... gone for 2 days and this is already a 10 page thread.
Hellfire... let me make this clear... you are bringing an idea to us. This means you must convince us that the mechanics need to change. If you can't convince us (as you haven't so far) then the idea falls flat and should die (as every other thread like this has).
I personally don't see an issue with ninja-salvaging (and the quotes I posted on the first page show CCP doesn't have an issue with it either). And skimming through this thread I think it's safe to say that many others here do not see it as a problem. Just because you CLAIM it's bad game design doesn't make it so.
Now convince us. _______________________
"Just because I seem like an idiot doesn't mean I am one." ~Unknown |
Ziaxi
|
Posted - 2011.04.25 06:41:00 -
[287]
Originally by: HeIIfire11 He didn't keep anything going.It's funny though how many fanboys he has that don't have enough brains to have their own opinion.What was the point of your post?To come in here and show everyone that you can't write more than three lines of random crap?Good job.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_(punctuation)#Spaces_between_sentences
|
Zagdul
Gallente Shadowed Command Fatal Ascension
|
Posted - 2011.04.25 07:10:00 -
[288]
Originally by: Kranwe Sentai Ok point three. Lets refrase that one.
Say you go to the parking lot of the opera house and put sugar in everone's vehicles. Then you drive down the road and wait for the cars to leave the parking lot. You have one thing in mind: Get the cars imobilized so you can kill the driver and passengers so you can get rich on all their fancy jewelry they had on at the opera, and their wallets too.
Here come the cars. They start to stall like clock work. You start shooting at the first car, destroying most of the car while you are at it. You manage to kill the people inside so theoretically you could run to the car and take the good stuff.
But then the drivers of the other stalled cars start shooting at you so you shoot back, wrecking their cars, killing the people inside, and at the same time you are at risk yourself.
But then some other bad guys sneak up and start taking the rims of the cars and other good stuff which they can sell later. Those bad guys don't have anything of value and aren't taking anything from inside of the car, which is what you are after. The car wrecks are just the extra crap that is left over from the shootout. Now if they took your loot from inside the car, that would be stealing from you, since your original plan (plan A) was to get the drivers killed and rob them of their belongings. Your plan B was to eventually clean up the salvage from the cars with your tools.
You mentioned the Noctis. It has cool magnates which you can pull the car wrecks up close and salvage the wrecks real quick like. That is an added bonus of the massacre.
You need to understand that every action has a reaction. Early bird gets the worm. The quick survive. Etc. If the junk left over really means that much to you, then either salvage as you go along (using a Marauder) or use a second account to fly a Noctis behind you and clean up as you go.
Your argument that the salvage is yours simply has no bearing, no reasoning and absolute nonsence.
I suppose I could go about it like this: You shoot down an airplane, since it is full of bad guys. The plane doesn't belong to you, it fell down and crashed and a bunch of people heard it and ran up to it collecting souverniers etc. The bad guys inside are dead and you can go take out their gold fillings what not. Anyone else messing with your bad guys is stealing what you wanted.
I suppose if you bought the plane just to shoot it down, then the wreck would be yours.
Some cars have really nice rims dude.
just sayn'
|
HeIIfire11
|
Posted - 2011.04.25 10:59:00 -
[289]
Originally by: ShahFluffers
Hellfire... let me make this clear... you are bringing an idea to us. This means you must convince us that the mechanics need to change. If you can't convince us (as you haven't so far) then the idea falls flat and should die (as every other thread like this has).
Okay I'll start here. As much as I would love the Idea that convincing you guys would be enough to change something in eve,it sadly wont. If the ideas that are brought to the csm and passed up to ccp don't get acknowledged then neither will mine. And to an extent I agree that this change would most likely be too much work for ccp for the small change that it would bring forth. That said my main goal in this thread was not to change anything but to simply state my opinion. Apart from that the people who would have to vote on my behalf would be the mission runner crowd which for the most part have no interest in pvp what so ever. Because while being a solution to much confusion it would do just that,offer a new opportunity for pvp in high sec while eliminating a risk free way to earn isk.
Originally by: ShahFluffers I personally don't see an issue with ninja-salvaging (and the quotes I posted on the first page show CCP doesn't have an issue with it either). And skimming through this thread I think it's safe to say that many others here do not see it as a problem.
First off I have to say I disagree that ninja salvaging doesn't cause a problem. So being a topic that has been beaten to death I'm not too sure where to start. I think I'll start with your quotes on page one that everyone values so highly.Lets break them down and see what they actually bring to the table. Keep in mind that I will treat what ccp says as gods word just for the sake of argument. After all it is their game.
1. CCP Mitnal: Originally by: CCP Mitnal "Our policy on this is extremely clear... Salvaging is a mini-profession within EVE and does not constitute stealing."
In quote one the link doesn't work so all I have to go on is the quote itself and not what was said in the thread. And the quote says nothing other than that ccp wants it to be a mini profession and doesn't consider salvaging as theft.
2. 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.
In quote two say the same thing basically,that its an intended game mechanic and not an exploit. I for one never said it was an exploit but that it was a bad game design. But I'll get to that later on in this post. The key part of this quote is the bottom half.
Originally by: GM Faolchu 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.
"Eve is a harsh place....it's a do or die world". What is harsh about scanning down a player who cant shoot you,and salvaging his wrecks while he tanks the mission? Nothing at all. Its free isk. Not only that but it takes nothing to train an alt which can do this,I estimate two weeks if not less. Even faster now that we have the 100% training time bonus on new characters.
Continued below...
|
HeIIfire11
|
Posted - 2011.04.25 11:02:00 -
[290]
3. Senior GM Ytterbium : Originally by: GM Ytterbium Players are still completely free to salvage other pilot wrecks at will ... and doing so is not considered as an exploit.
This one is very very interesting and a major key in my argument. You quoted the part that you wanted to see but not the relevant part. One of the most used arguments are "it's not your wreck and only the loot inside is yours". I am going to kill this argument once and for all. Now again,keep I'm mind that we are taking the word of CCP as the word of god. The part you should have quoted is this...
Originally by: GM Ytterbium The wreck ownership mechanism has recently been changed, and as such will not belong to the character doing most damage to the NPC anymore, but to the pilot who first accepted the mission.
Wow..now this brings a whole new light on the subject now doesn't it? This is a senior GM who states that the wreck does in fact belong to the pilot who accepted the mission. This along with the fact that the wreck has my corp name on it,can not be shot or tractor beamed by anyone but myself and my corp clearly proves that the wreck is in fact...mine. He doesn't say It belongs to me as long as my loot is in there,but that it is plain and simple..mine.
4. CCP Prism X : Originally by: CCP Prism X Why is stealing salvage OK? It's not. It shouldn't even be possible to move an item from your cargo-hold / hanger to another persons cargo-hold / hanger without opening a trade window. Before the salvage enters those containers it is not considered your stuff by the server code. Hence it's not stealing.
In this quote CCP Prism x took it upon himself to get a little sarcastic.
Originally by: CCP Prism X Why is stealing salvage OK? It's not. It shouldn't even be possible to move an item from your cargo-hold / hanger to another persons cargo-hold / hanger without opening a trade window.
No **** Sherlock. But he doesn't address any of the key points players bring up in this or any other thread on this subject. All he says is that "It's not stealing" which clearly contradicts what Senior GM Ytterbium stated in the quote above. As far as I know taking anything from a wreck that is mine (which we have proven to be mine) is stealing. So either they need to talk it over what it is exactly that they want,or to fix the game mechanic to reflect this choice. Like change the ownership of the wreck when looted. So until they decide what it is they want,I will call it bad game design. Simple as that. Why? Because the game mechanic doesn't reflect what they say it is intended to be.
5. CCP Incognito : Originally by: CCP Incognito Had a chat with some designers this evening. Ninja salvaging is intended game play. It was always intended that the wrecks are public, the loot is private. They do not see it as a problem if others salvage your wrecks.
This quote confirms my statement from above and again contradicts what Senior GM Ytterbium stated in his post. It confirms my statement that the game mechanic doesn't reflect what the designers intend it to be hence its bad game design as I have said many times in this thread. Bad game design which causes confusion and these threads that keep arising on this subject. He has spoken with the designers and they have concluded that the wreck is not mine but the loot is. Why then after the wreck is looted,does it remain unchanged? I still can't shoot it or tractor beam it as a salvager or someone not in that corp. This again confirms a problem and a contradiction in the game design as far as salvaging goes.
Continued below...
|
|
HeIIfire11
|
Posted - 2011.04.25 11:04:00 -
[291]
Originally by: ShahFluffers Just because you CLAIM it's bad game design doesn't make it so.
No it doesn't but the facts above prove that it is and I hope I helped clear you nicely prepaired quote bible up a bit and maybe even convince you that there is infact a problem at hand that causes this confusion. What it is and how to fix it I will leave up to the developers to solve. In my opinion flagging the salvager at least in missions,would solve the problem while opening new doors to pvp in high sec,and spice up mission running a bit.
|
Illwill Bill
Nifelhem
|
Posted - 2011.04.25 11:12:00 -
[292]
I find it to be GOOD game design.
Concord, on the other hand, isn't.
Originally by: CCP Zymurgist Revenge is a dish best served with auto-cannons.
|
Lady Spank
Amarr Trillionaire High-Rollers Suicidal Bassoon Orkesta
|
Posted - 2011.04.25 11:25:00 -
[293]
Originally by: HeIIfire11
Originally by: ShahFluffers Just because you CLAIM it's bad game design doesn't make it so.
No it doesn't but the facts above prove that it is and I hope I helped clear you nicely prepaired quote bible up a bit and maybe even convince you that there is infact a problem at hand that causes this confusion. What it is and how to fix it I will leave up to the developers to solve. In my opinion flagging the salvager at least in missions,would solve the problem while opening new doors to pvp in high sec,and spice up mission running a bit.
No; you are simply expecting something to change that doesn't need changing.
|
HeIIfire11
|
Posted - 2011.04.25 11:29:00 -
[294]
Originally by: Lady Spank
Originally by: HeIIfire11
Originally by: ShahFluffers Just because you CLAIM it's bad game design doesn't make it so.
No it doesn't but the facts above prove that it is and I hope I helped clear you nicely prepaired quote bible up a bit and maybe even convince you that there is infact a problem at hand that causes this confusion. What it is and how to fix it I will leave up to the developers to solve. In my opinion flagging the salvager at least in missions,would solve the problem while opening new doors to pvp in high sec,and spice up mission running a bit.
No; you are simply expecting something to change that doesn't need changing.
If you wouuld have read the two posts above you would have seen that I expect no change but that I was simply stating my opinion.
Read before spitting your crap on the forum.Until then you get a nice fat 0/10 from me that you can share with all the other trolls that post after this.
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
|
Posted - 2011.04.25 11:32:00 -
[295]
Originally by: HeIIfire11 This one is very very interesting and a major key in my argument. You quoted the part that you wanted to see but not the relevant part. One of the most used arguments are "it's not your wreck and only the loot inside is yours". I am going to kill this argument once and for all [à] Wow..now this brings a whole new light on the subject now doesn't it?
No it doesn't.
Quote: This along with the fact that the wreck has my corp name on it,can not be shot or tractor beamed by anyone but myself and my corp clearly proves that the wreck is in fact...
àno-one's.
Where else would the ownership of the loot be communicated except on the wreck? On the can, of course, but the can is contained inside the wreck.
Why can't I tractor the wreck? Because it contains a loot can that belongs to someone else.
What happens when the wreck is removed? The ownership display is transferred to the loot can.
What else happens when the wreck is removed? Nothing. Most notably, no theft flags are issued.
Why is salvaging not stealing? Because nothing that you own is removed. Let's repeat that: removing the wreck through salvaging does not remove anything you own ù if it did, there would be aggression flags flaring up all over the place. Removing the wreck removes nothing you own because you do not own the wreck.
Quote: But he doesn't address any of the key points players bring up in this or any other thread on this subject.
Yes he does, mainly because you didn't quote the full post: Originally by: CCP Prism X If you're surprised as to why the server does not consider it your stuff, it's because it's a mini profession designed for people who want to roam and look for salvage, not to further increase the revenue from mission grinding.. I doubt anyone with a perspective thinks we need to high-sec increase mission grinding any further.
àand thus your confusion about Ytterbium's quote is explained: the wreck ownership changes came about because the loot ù the stuff contained by the wreck ù is part of the mission reward mechanism, and being able to redirect those rewards by shooting more than the mission owner broke that mechanism. Salvaging is not part of that mechanism. Salvage is not part of the mission rewards. You have to earn the salvage, and doing the mission and "creating the wrecks" is not how you do that ù salvaging is.
So the fact remains: the salvage is not yours. Regardless of what semantic spins you want to take on the matter of wreck ownership, salvaging wrecks is never stealing. Nothing of yours is removed (again: removing the wreck ≠ removing your stuff ù the wreck is not yours). You are deprived of nothing. The only thing that is yours is the loot.
Therefore, instead of going through aaaaall of that every time, it is far easier to make that distinction: the loot is yours, the wreck is not. The ownership flag on the wreck says who owns the loot can contained by the wreck ù a can that is released if the wreck is removed through salvaging.
Originally by: HeIIfire11 What is harsh about scanning down a player who cant shoot you,and salvaging his wrecks while he tanks the mission?
You know full well what he's talking about: it's harsh for the mission-runner. He cannot live in a nice peaceful bubble of his own, and will have to live with people coming in and doing things that he might not like. Things like competing for available salvage.
Quote: there is infact a problem at hand that causes this confusion
Yes, but the solution to that problem is the exact opposite of what all mission runners want: make it crystal clear that they only own the loot by not marking the wreck with their names and by somehow still marking the loot contained inside. So the question is: if you see the confusion as the issue that needs solving, how do you propose to fix that issue? How do you propose to communicate the ownership of the loot without displaying it on the wreck? ùùù ôIf you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡à you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.ö ù Karath Piki |
HeIIfire11
|
Posted - 2011.04.25 11:35:00 -
[296]
Originally by: HeIIfire11 Read before spitting your crap on the forum.Until then you get a nice fat 0/10 from me that you can share with all the other trolls that post after this.
This includes you fanboy..to which I will no longer respond. Take your fan club and have fun trolling. Your opinion is no longer worth even reading.
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
|
Posted - 2011.04.25 11:43:00 -
[297]
Edited by: Tippia on 25/04/2011 11:44:52 Oh and (since I managed to squeeze that post through with 0 characters left)à Originally by: HeIIfire11 He has spoken with the designers and they have concluded that the wreck is not mine but the loot is. Why then after the wreck is looted,does it remain unchanged? I still can't shoot it or tractor beam it as a salvager or someone not in that corp.
Because the can is still there and it still belongs to you. Yes, since a little while ago, this could be fixed by automatically turning empty wrecks blue, but that option has only been available for a very short timeà
Quote: This again confirms a problem and a contradiction in the game design as far as salvaging goes.
No it doesn't because the game design as far as salvaging goes was put into place five years ago and (again) the option to turn wrecks blue has only been available for a very short time.
Not incorporating or making use of features that would not be in the game for another four years is not bad game design in the salvaging system. If you want to call it anything, say it's a failure to iterate, but that is something completely different. ùùù ôIf you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡à you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.ö ù Karath Piki |
Lady Spank
Amarr Trillionaire High-Rollers Suicidal Bassoon Orkesta
|
Posted - 2011.04.25 12:06:00 -
[298]
Originally by: HeIIfire11
Originally by: Lady Spank
Originally by: HeIIfire11
Originally by: ShahFluffers Just because you CLAIM it's bad game design doesn't make it so.
No it doesn't but the facts above prove that it is and I hope I helped clear you nicely prepaired quote bible up a bit and maybe even convince you that there is infact a problem at hand that causes this confusion. What it is and how to fix it I will leave up to the developers to solve. In my opinion flagging the salvager at least in missions,would solve the problem while opening new doors to pvp in high sec,and spice up mission running a bit.
No; you are simply expecting something to change that doesn't need changing.
If you wouuld have read the two posts above you would have seen that I expect no change but that I was simply stating my opinion.
Read before spitting your crap on the forum.Until then you get a nice fat 0/10 from me that you can share with all the other trolls that post after this.
You contradict yourself so much it's hard to keep up with whatever brainfart you are currently spewing.
|
Ania Hyperthron
|
Posted - 2011.04.25 12:09:00 -
[299]
Ninja salvaging is wrong and should be redesigned. You pop a target. And then wrecks is yours. There is 2 ways to make it good. Totally remove ownership, or give PROPER ownership of a wreck. Why FFS loot inside is yours and salvage not ?. Anyway what is the diffrence between salvage and loot, on both you have to spent some time and skill so why WE missioners are giving our JOB just like that for free to ninja salvager.Someone said "becuase its a floating garbage" ...NO ITS NOT its my JOB my kill and WRECK should be MINE or should be accesible for everyone. Dont you get it ?
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
|
Posted - 2011.04.25 12:09:00 -
[300]
Oh, and I forgot this one.
Quote: Exactly a sandbox..which includes but doesn't limit it to pvp just like I said.
Except that, as a sandbox, there is always PvP unless it's a limited sandbox. EVE doesn't have those limits. Sandbox means you are given a set of tools and are then free to do what you like. This also means that, without that no-PvP limit, people are also allowed to do what they likeà to you. This automatically turns the sandbox into a full-PvP game. Everything you do is PvP in one way or another. Calling a game "not a PvP game", when everything you do in it is PvP, is somewhat disingenuousà
Quote: Yea I said the player is scanned and not the wrecks.Why would that rule out anything?
I don't know. You are the ones who said it rules out roaming for wrecks.
Quote: Stop putting words in my mouth.
I'm not. That is a copy-paste quote.
Quote: You can roam by flying from belt to belt or roam by checking out ded plexes but what we are currently talking about has nothing to do with roaming in my opinion.
Scanning down likely locations for wrecks is not roaming? Riiiightà
Quote: What I explained to you once and didn't want to explain again is that the mission runner has enough risk doing the mission,more than the salvager has getting the salvage.
In other words, there is zero risk for the mission runner in getting the salvage, just like for the ninja. Again: the (non)risks inherent in mission running is paid for by the mission rewards. Salvage is not part of those rewards.
Quote: Which again is exactly what I said lol
No, what you originally said was ôYour "infoblock of pertinent dev quotes" is worthless because it doesn't address any of the topics mentioned in this thread.ö, which is false.
Quote: Look at all your lame responses like "why" or "not good enough" or "why not" that you posted
Asking you to clarify your position ù asking you to explain why you give a particular unqualified answer (or dismiss something out of hand) is not really lame. It's about making you argue your case. If you think that arguing your case is "lame", then we are getting close to understanding why your ideas have such problems gaining tractionà
Quote: You don't accept what is being said but continue to ask the same questions over and over again.
àbecause you don't qualify your statements or argue for your proposals. If you don't, that "why" is what you get. ùùù ôIf you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡à you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.ö ù Karath Piki |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 .. 25 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |