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) |
Jayson Lee
Minmatar Universal Exports
|
Posted - 2011.04.29 15:02:00 -
[481]
Kinda off topic, but based on what we have, should the Noctis get a bonus to probes? It would seem to make sense if CCP wants this ships to be used to salvage other players missions.
|
Awesome Possum
Original Sin. PURPLE HELMETED WARRIORS
|
Posted - 2011.04.29 15:34:00 -
[482]
Originally by: Jayson Lee Kinda off topic, but based on what we have, should the Noctis get a bonus to probes? It would seem to make sense if CCP wants this ships to be used to salvage other players missions.
there are already ships that get probe bonuses.
there should never be a ship that can do it all.
though god knows I'd love a ship with codebreaker/analyzer bonuses.... I sat on a can for 5mins once before it finished. ♥
|
Mintala Arana
Amarr
|
Posted - 2011.04.29 15:37:00 -
[483]
Originally by: Jayson Lee Kinda off topic, but based on what we have, should the Noctis get a bonus to probes? It would seem to make sense if CCP wants this ships to be used to salvage other players missions.
Because it has a large cargo hold, the Noctis is useful for looting your own mission or another mission you have permission to loot. For ninja salvaging, it's huge and slow. Who cares if it can fit a ton of salvagers, because a ninja can't tractor random wrecks closer he can't make use of it's bonus to tractor range and speed, so he'd have to slowboat over to the wrecks. And who cares about the size of the cargo hold, since salvage is small anyway. It's better to ninja salvage in something small and quick, with several high slots.
So no, the Noctis doesn't need a bonus to probes.
|
Malcanis
Caldari Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
|
Posted - 2011.04.29 16:31:00 -
[484]
Originally by: HeIIfire11 Edited by: HeIIfire11 on 29/04/2011 13:19:10
Originally by: Malcanis 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.
"EVE is a really hostile game. We love how hostile it is.. we never meant for it to be a breeze."
http://www.eve-search.com/thread/971872/page/1
There you go. The CCP Dev who designed salvaging specifically stated that it was intended to support a new profession, and NOT to increase mission rewards.
Old quote is old.
What difference does that make? You asked for proof that salvaging was not intended to be part of the mission reward, and I provided it. There it is in white on black: CCP did not intend salvage to be part of the mission reward, along with the comment that "no-one with any perspective" thinks that mission running needs to be extended
I'm not arguing with you, since no matter what anyone says you just wave it away, or ignore it, or apply some arbitrary excuse to discount it. It's impossible to argue with a person who has no respect for facts or logic. It's only possible to embarrass them.
PrismX's comment is wholly applicable to you: you don't have any perspective. All you think about is the narrow viewpoint of the hi-sec mission-runner. You're incapable of think about the wider interest of the game, or any other profession.
Still, having worked through at least two dozen of these threads, I'm no longer worried or upset by these discussions, as CCP show absolutely no inclination to reverse these decisions.
Allow me to counter with an even more egalitarian proposal: make mission deadspaces into lo-sec pockets (which would explain why CONCORD wont go in and blast those naughty Guristas themselves). Then you can freely engage salvagers at the cost of nothing more than a minor sec-hit hit.
Anyone who does illegally attack anyone else in such a deadspace pocket will of course be trapped in there for 15 minutes until their GCC runs out. Plenty of opportunity for consequences to apply there, and you'll get your stated wish of more PvP in hi-sec.
Since this proposal gives you everything you say you want, I trust it will have your full support?
Malcanis' Law: Whenever a mechanics change is proposed on behalf of "new players", that change is always to the overwhelming advantage of richer, older players. |
HeIIfire11
|
Posted - 2011.04.29 17:24:00 -
[485]
Originally by: Malcanis
Originally by: HeIIfire11 Edited by: HeIIfire11 on 29/04/2011 13:19:10
Originally by: Malcanis 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.
"EVE is a really hostile game. We love how hostile it is.. we never meant for it to be a breeze."
http://www.eve-search.com/thread/971872/page/1
There you go. The CCP Dev who designed salvaging specifically stated that it was intended to support a new profession, and NOT to increase mission rewards.
Old quote is old.
What difference does that make? You asked for proof that salvaging was not intended to be part of the mission reward, and I provided it. There it is in white on black: CCP did not intend salvage to be part of the mission reward, along with the comment that "no-one with any perspective" thinks that mission running needs to be extended
I'm not arguing with you, since no matter what anyone says you just wave it away, or ignore it, or apply some arbitrary excuse to discount it. It's impossible to argue with a person who has no respect for facts or logic. It's only possible to embarrass them.
PrismX's comment is wholly applicable to you: you don't have any perspective. All you think about is the narrow viewpoint of the hi-sec mission-runner. You're incapable of think about the wider interest of the game, or any other profession.
Still, having worked through at least two dozen of these threads, I'm no longer worried or upset by these discussions, as CCP show absolutely no inclination to reverse these decisions.
Allow me to counter with an even more egalitarian proposal: make mission deadspaces into lo-sec pockets (which would explain why CONCORD wont go in and blast those naughty Guristas themselves). Then you can freely engage salvagers at the cost of nothing more than a minor sec-hit hit.
Anyone who does illegally attack anyone else in such a deadspace pocket will of course be trapped in there for 15 minutes until their GCC runs out. Plenty of opportunity for consequences to apply there, and you'll get your stated wish of more PvP in hi-sec.
Since this proposal gives you everything you say you want, I trust it will have your full support?
Sure you have my support only I wont come in with my mission ship
Then it's all good to me.
As far as thje quote goes..I know what ccp wants and it's all good but then the game mechanics should reflect that choice. My corp name on the wreck,the protection of concord on "my" wreck and the fact that no one can tractor beam it leads me to believe that it is in fact my wreck. Quotes like this help a bit too.
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.
So they should finish something before throwing it out there which is the cause of this confusion. And I know they have been reading this thread but hell will freeze before they try to comment because I'm right.
So think what you will and I agree..they wont change it. I could care less because ninja's are not a problem for me. I've had two in god knows how many years and I still leave the cheap salvage where it lands. My point was that its bad game design to throw out unfinished content. No one has proven me wrong but everyone wants to make excuses for ccp. Go ahead I couldn't care less really.
Anyone with any brains can see it's not well thought out.
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
|
Posted - 2011.04.29 17:29:00 -
[486]
Edited by: Tippia on 29/04/2011 17:30:09
Originally by: HeIIfire11 I know what ccp wants and it's all good but then the game mechanics should reflect that choice.
They do.
Quote: the protection of concord on "my" wreck
For instance, I can remove your wreck without any kind of response from CONCORD ù they don't really protect it. 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 - 2011.04.29 17:29:00 -
[487]
Edited by: HeIIfire11 on 29/04/2011 17:32:31 Edited by: HeIIfire11 on 29/04/2011 17:30:49
Originally by: Tippia
Originally by: HeIIfire11 I know what ccp wants and it's all good but then the game mechanics should reflect that choice.
They do.
They do not.
Tippia you are a trip..really
Originally by: Tippia
Quote: the protection of concord on "my" wreck
For instance, I can remove your wreck without any kind of response from CONCORD ù they don't really protect it.
I bet you wont shoot at it though.
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
|
Posted - 2011.04.29 17:37:00 -
[488]
Originally by: HeIIfire11 I bet you wont shoot at it though.
Of course not. That would destroy the loot can, which is yours.
Look, the only real confusion is that some people seem the believe that just because you do two things at they same time, they're the same thing, even though the mechanics quite clearly show that this is not the case. Education would solve that quite nicely.
The rest of it is just greed and baseless entitlement. 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 |
Mister Rocknrolla
|
Posted - 2011.04.29 17:51:00 -
[489]
Originally by: HeIIfire11 Edited by: HeIIfire11 on 29/04/2011 17:32:31 Edited by: HeIIfire11 on 29/04/2011 17:30:49
Originally by: Tippia
Originally by: HeIIfire11 I know what ccp wants and it's all good but then the game mechanics should reflect that choice.
They do.
They do not.
Tippia you are a trip..really
CCP wants conflict between players. This thread is testament to their success. The more it's argued, the more successful the current mechanic is proven to be.
|
HeIIfire11
|
Posted - 2011.04.29 17:51:00 -
[490]
Originally by: Tippia
Originally by: HeIIfire11 I bet you wont shoot at it though.
Of course not. That would destroy the loot can, which is yours.
Look, the only real confusion is that some people seem the believe that just because you do two things at they same time, they're the same thing, even though the mechanics quite clearly show that this is not the case. Education would solve that quite nicely.
The rest of it is just greed and baseless entitlement.
There is no loot can it was REPLACED by wrecks..remember?
"In Kali all ships (player and NPC) will spawn wrecks upon destruction. This will replace the loot can."
|
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
|
Posted - 2011.04.29 18:15:00 -
[491]
Originally by: HeIIfire11 There is no loot can
Sure there is. It's the container that holds your loot. Remove the wreck and the can is exposed. Go up to the wreck, and it lets you access the can. Have you ever seen loot float around freely in space?
Quote: "This will replace the loot can"
àas the primary way of containing your loot, and moving or destroying that loot (which belongs to you) isn't allowed. The wreck, on the other hand, doesn't belong to you, which is why I can remove it (and expose the raw can) without any kind of CONCORD response.
You see, you're actively trying to confuse yourself by not admitting the very simple explanation ù one that is 100% consistent with the game mechanics ù that the wreck isn't owned, whereas the loot can contained in it is. The game isn't confusing. You are. And you can't really accuse the game for confusion you create for yourself.
The fact remains: the wreck isn't yours. The game mechanics are consistent with this fact. 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 |
Mortania
Minmatar No Compromise Gentlemen's Agreement
|
Posted - 2011.04.29 18:23:00 -
[492]
There is no loot can contained within. The wreck IS the loot can. A cargo container is generated if the wreck is salvaged before the loot is removed from the wreck. But there is no "loot can contained in it". You're creating a model that fits your definition of what is occurring. But, as evidenced from the quote, there is no loot can separate from the wreck. They are one in the same.
|
HeIIfire11
|
Posted - 2011.04.29 18:23:00 -
[493]
Edited by: HeIIfire11 on 29/04/2011 18:24:18
Originally by: Tippia
Originally by: HeIIfire11 There is no loot can
Sure there is. It's the container that holds your loot. Remove the wreck and the can is exposed. Go up to the wreck, and it lets you access the can. Have you ever seen loot float around freely in space?
Quote: "This will replace the loot can"
àas the primary way of containing your loot, and moving or destroying that loot (which belongs to you) isn't allowed. The wreck, on the other hand, doesn't belong to you, which is why I can remove it (and expose the raw can) without any kind of CONCORD response.
You see, you're actively trying to confuse yourself by not admitting the very simple explanation ù one that is 100% consistent with the game mechanics ù that the wreck isn't owned, whereas the loot can contained in it is. The game isn't confusing. You are. And you can't really accuse the game for confusion you create for yourself.
The fact remains: the wreck isn't yours. The game mechanics are consistent with this fact.
So you're just gonna ignore the quotes from ccp? How many empty cans have you seen? When you empty a can it goes poof and is gone. The wreck however stays. Even an empty wreck that stays there after looting it has my corp name and appears to be mine.It is also protected by concord should you want to shoot it. Despite the fact that ccp says cans were replaced by wrecks.
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
|
Posted - 2011.04.29 18:41:00 -
[494]
Edited by: Tippia on 29/04/2011 18:46:05
Originally by: Mortania You're creating a model that fits your definition of what is occurring.
It's not really my definition ù it's a model of what's occurring that is in line with how the mechanics handle the different parts: a wreck that anyone can remove without ill effects; a can that can be stolen from because its contents are owned, and which is laid bare when the wreck is removed; and finally, the can is contained by the wreck, which is why you see your name on the wreck and why outright destroying it (which also destroys the owned can) generates a response.
While it may not happen like this in the code, the model explains the rules and the mechanics just fine ù any confusion that might arise is caused by disregarding the model.
Originally by: HeIIfire11 So you're just gonna ignore the quotes from ccp?
Well, you are, so why can't I? The wreck isn't yours, or you wouldn't be able to remove it without consequence. The salvage isn't yours because you haven't earned it. Salvage isn't meant to be a reward for the mission-runner. Salvaging isn't theft.
As a result of all of that, there is exactly zero reason to flag the salvager.
Oh, and you'll also note that I didn't ignore the quoteà
Quote: When you empty a can it goes poof and is gone. The wreck however stays.
So the wreck and the can are obviously not the same thingà
Quote: Even an empty wreck that stays there after looting it has my corp name and appears to be mine.
It "appears to be" yours because it has your name on ità It appears not to be yours because I can remove it without CONCORD interferenceà
Which appearance wins? 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 |
Emperor Salazar
Caldari Remote Soviet Industries
|
Posted - 2011.04.29 18:43:00 -
[495]
Originally by: HeIIfire11 appears to be mine.
Yeah...
See this is your problem. CCP is definitely confusing you with the whole wreck looking like its yours. But they have flat out said its not (despite their ****ty ability to portray this in-game). Why are you trying to contest a point that CCP has already manifested a firm stance on?
|
Jayson Lee
Minmatar Universal Exports
|
Posted - 2011.04.29 18:44:00 -
[496]
Question about wrecks. It my mission, the wreck is empty, can I shoot the wreck? Can anyone else shoot the wreck? Will either person be flagged for aggression?
|
HeIIfire11
|
Posted - 2011.04.29 18:49:00 -
[497]
Edited by: HeIIfire11 on 29/04/2011 18:53:43
Originally by: Jayson Lee Question about wrecks. It my mission, the wreck is empty, can I shoot the wreck? Can anyone else shoot the wreck? Will either person be flagged for aggression?
You can shoot it...others can't. They will get concorded.
Originally by: Emperor Salazar (despite their ****ty ability to portray this in-game).
This is all I'm trying to prove or should I say have proven.
|
Jayson Lee
Minmatar Universal Exports
|
Posted - 2011.04.29 18:54:00 -
[498]
Originally by: HeIIfire11 Edited by: HeIIfire11 on 29/04/2011 18:50:01
Originally by: Jayson Lee Question about wrecks. It my mission, the wreck is empty, can I shoot the wreck? Can anyone else shoot the wreck? Will either person be flagged for aggression?
You can shoot it...others can't. They will get concorded.
Any empty wreck? Why doesnt this game mechanic suggest more than anything else who owns the wreck.
Is there another situation like this in EVE?
|
HeIIfire11
|
Posted - 2011.04.29 18:55:00 -
[499]
Edited by: HeIIfire11 on 29/04/2011 18:56:03
Originally by: Jayson Lee
Originally by: HeIIfire11 Edited by: HeIIfire11 on 29/04/2011 18:50:01
Originally by: Jayson Lee Question about wrecks. It my mission, the wreck is empty, can I shoot the wreck? Can anyone else shoot the wreck? Will either person be flagged for aggression?
You can shoot it...others can't. They will get concorded.
Any empty wreck? Why doesnt this game mechanic suggest more than anything else who owns the wreck.
Is there another situation like this in EVE?
You can only shoot wrecks that belong to you,your corp or your fleet I think. Shooting anyone elses wreck empty or not will get you concorded.
Not exactly sure about the fleet part.
|
Kyra Felann
Gallente The Scope
|
Posted - 2011.04.29 19:01:00 -
[500]
Edited by: Kyra Felann on 29/04/2011 19:01:04 My summary of the anti-ninja-salvagers in this thread:
"I choose to ignore the voluminous evidence to the contrary and to believe that my own made-up rules regarding wrecks and salvage should apply to everyone else."
or put another way,
*puts fingers in ears and closes eyes* "LA LA LA LA! I can't hear you! Ninja salvaging is stealing! THHHHHHHHHPTH!"
The game works the way it does. There are pages full of quotes from CCP proving beyond any doubt that it's working as intended. Just accept it and move on already. -----WARNING SIGNATURE BELOW-----
Bring back the NeoNeoCom! |
|
HeIIfire11
|
Posted - 2011.04.29 19:04:00 -
[501]
Originally by: Kyra Felann There are pages full of quotes from CCP proving beyond any doubt that it's working as intended. Just accept it and move on already.
And there are contradictions in these quotes which I posted on page 10. They dont reflect the game mechanics which is the point I'm making.
|
Mortania
Minmatar No Compromise Gentlemen's Agreement
|
Posted - 2011.04.29 19:04:00 -
[502]
Originally by: Tippia Edited by: Tippia on 29/04/2011 18:46:05
Originally by: Mortania You're creating a model that fits your definition of what is occurring.
It's not really my definition ù it's a model of what's occurring that is in line with how the mechanics handle the different parts: a wreck that anyone can remove without ill effects; a can that can be stolen from because its contents are owned, and which is laid bare when the wreck is removed; and finally, the can is contained by the wreck, which is why you see your name on the wreck and why outright destroying it (which also destroys the owned can) generates a response.
But it doesn't have to contain loot for the response, right? Your model doesn't explain the entire situation. Additionally, there's the name on the empty wreck that isn't explained by your model either.
What I'm saying is that no simple model (the wreck is everyone's, there's a can in the wrecks) that has been put forth that explains what's happening. Which if you go back and read the OP, is what started the whole thing. And what Hellfire seems to be arguing as well.
It's not GREED that is driving an ask for a change, but CLARITY.
Make the model work in a simple consistent fashion that doesn't create confusion.
The current system fails that test.
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
|
Posted - 2011.04.29 19:09:00 -
[503]
Edited by: Tippia on 29/04/2011 19:16:32
Originally by: HeIIfire11
Originally by: Emperor Salazar (despite their ****ty ability to portray this in-game).
This is all I'm trying to prove or should I say have proven.
No, you're trying to prove more than that: that the wreck and the products made out of that wreck (the salvage) is owned by whomever made the wreck spawn.
Originally by: Jayson Lee Why doesnt this game mechanic suggest more than anything else who owns the wreck.
Because it is also possible to remove the wreck without getting CONCORDed and because the mechanic that would fix that little issue (which is easily explained anyway) wasn't put into the game until four years after wrecks had been introduced.
Originally by: Mortania But it doesn't have to contain loot for the response, right? Your model doesn't explain the entire situation.
Yes it does. The wreck still contains the (owned) can.
Quote: Additionally, there's the name on the empty wreck that isn't explained by your model either.
Yes: the wreck contains the (owned) can.
Quote: What I'm saying is that no simple model (the wreck is everyone's, there's a can in the wrecks) that has been put forth that explains what's happening.
Sure it does: the wreck contains the can. You can remove the wreck without issue, and that reveals the raw can (if it's empty, it implodes at this point). You cannot shoot or tractor the wreck because you'd destroy or move the (owned) can.
Quote: It's not GREED that is driving an ask for a change, but CLARITY.
Greed has motivated every salvaging thread so far, and if you look at what they're suggesting it seems to motivate them as well: they do not want clarity (which would mean that salvagers have an even easier time) but rather that the mission-runner gets his rewards increased.
If it was clarity they were after, the words "stealing", "theft" and "flagging" would never appearà 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 |
Jayson Lee
Minmatar Universal Exports
|
Posted - 2011.04.29 19:25:00 -
[504]
Quote: Because it is also possible to remove the wreck without getting CONCORDed and because the mechanic that would fix that little issue (which is easily explained anyway) wasn't put into the game until four years after wrecks had been introduced.
You can do alot of things to avoid concord. Doenst change anything. To clairfy though, if I create the wreck I, my corp, or my group can destroy it? No one else can do this, correct?
Quote: Greed has motivated every salvaging thread so far, and if you look at what they're suggesting it seems to motivate them as well: they do not want clarity (which would mean that salvagers have an even easier time) but rather that the mission-runner gets his rewards increased.
I take issue with this, if its greed that drove everyone they would ignore salvage. You make more money quicker if you dont salvage.
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
|
Posted - 2011.04.29 19:31:00 -
[505]
Originally by: Jayson Lee You can do alot of things to avoid concord.
Not really. You can do things to not trigger CONCORD; avoiding them is bannable.
Quote: To clairfy though, if I create the wreck I, my corp, or my group can destroy it? No one else can do this, correct?
Not destroy it, no. But anyone can remove it.
Quote: I take issue with this, if its greed that drove everyone they would ignore salvage.
You'd think so, yes, but what else would you call the motivation to further increase the already large rewards of one of the easiest, most risk-free ways of earning ISK and removing the extra effort required for those rewards? 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 |
Mortania
Minmatar No Compromise Gentlemen's Agreement
|
Posted - 2011.04.29 19:40:00 -
[506]
Edited by: Mortania on 29/04/2011 19:40:53 Edited by: Mortania on 29/04/2011 19:40:39
Originally by: Tippia If it was clarity they were after, the words "stealing", "theft" and "flagging" would never appearà
Nah, that's just as easily explained by a lack of understanding. People believe that they are being stolen from because they believe that the wreck is theirs. Which it is. It is only the salvage contained in the wreck which isn't.
I haven't tested it in a while, but I believe even a "looted" empty wreck will still create a concord response when exploded, yes?
|
Jayson Lee
Minmatar Universal Exports
|
Posted - 2011.04.29 19:45:00 -
[507]
Quote: Not really. You can do things to not trigger CONCORD; avoiding them is bannable.
Not really, I avoid concord all the time, I chose not to **** them off.
Quote: Not destroy it, no. But anyone can remove it.
Is there anything else like this in eve. It has my name, I can tow it, I can shot it, and no else has these abilities?
Quote: You'd think so, yes, but what else would you call the motivation to further increase the already large rewards of one of the easiest, most risk-free ways of earning ISK and removing the extra effort required for those rewards?
This would only make sense if the MR got the rewards automatically after the mission. He doesnt. You still have to change ships and do the work, so its not an extra reward. As for the reasons for these threads, its fairly clear that CCPs words do not match the game mechanics they have in place. Its easy to see how someone gets confused. The game tells you one thing, CCP says something else.
|
Utremi Fasolasi
Gallente
|
Posted - 2011.04.29 20:31:00 -
[508]
Originally by: Skex Relbore Ninja Salvaging is a legitmate mechanic because the devs like to make life easy on griefers in the game because if people had to actually take some risks and put a little work into being asshats the game might lose some of it's "dark harsh universe" feel
Scanning down ships in order to salvage wrecks that might be nearby is definitely work.
And the risk that the pilot in the pocket might not be done killing all the pirates is risk too. The salvager could get NPC aggro and be blown up.
It's a shame you can't scan down abandoned wrecks if I understand the mechanic properly, you can only locate them if there is still a player in the pocket. |
HeIIfire11
|
Posted - 2011.04.29 20:34:00 -
[509]
Edited by: HeIIfire11 on 29/04/2011 20:35:26
Originally by: Tippia the wreck contains the (owned) can.
You keep going on about this can when the blog on the introduction of wrecks which you brought into this discussion clearly states that said cans were REPLACED by wrecks. So ccp is wrong and you're right? If so...bad game design.
"In Kali all ships (player and NPC) will spawn wrecks upon destruction. This will replace the loot can."
Your can argument is no longer valid,please refrain from using it.
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
|
Posted - 2011.04.29 21:17:00 -
[510]
Originally by: Jayson Lee Not really, I avoid concord all the time, I chose not to **** them off.
You're not avoiding them, then.
Quote: Is there anything else like this in eve.
Nope.
Quote: This would only make sense if the MR got the rewards automatically after the mission.
It makes sense regardless: the loot is very specifically his, which is why taking it counts as "stealing" and why they changed it so that all NPC loot in a mission belongs to the mission-runner, rather than follow the normal rules for loot ownership. If he chooses to leave it behind, that's his problem.
Quote: You still have to change ships and do the work
Changing ships isn't really necessary, no, but yes, you have to collect the loot. It's still yours, though, and you don't have to do any extra work to own it since it's part of the mission reward structure.
Quote: so its not an extra reward.
The loot isn't, no. The salvage isn't really an extra reward either ù it's the standard (and only) reward for salvaging, and in relation to running the mission, it's neither "extra" nor "a reward."
Quote: Its easy to see how someone gets confused.
The only part that is remotely confusing is the name on the wrecks, but again: how else are they going to communicate the ownership of the loot?
Originally by: HeIIfire11 You keep going on about this can when the blog on the introduction of wrecks which you brought into this discussion clearly states that said cans were REPLACED by wrecks. So ccp is wrong and you're right?
No. The model is right and CCP is right. That's the whole point of the model. As for the bad game design: how else would they communicate the ownership of the loot?
Quote: And to clear things up I'm not after a mission buff
Funny that, seeing as how you're arguing for one. 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 |