Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
ShadowDraqon
The Quantum Company
|
Posted - 2009.05.19 15:58:00 -
[31]
Edited by: ShadowDraqon on 19/05/2009 15:58:51 I have a suggestion.
Make empty wrecks tractorable/shootable by anyone. If there is loot in them, same as they are now.
page 2, yay...
~ MED-SEC ~ AND The Blatantly Obvious |
Parmala Udoni
|
Posted - 2009.05.19 16:19:00 -
[32]
Originally by: Robert Caldera
Originally by: Santiago Fahahrri It's not broke, don't fix it.
what he said. Stop damn salvage threads already!!!
Putz.
The sheer number of threads indicates that there is a problem.
|
Hariya
|
Posted - 2009.05.19 16:34:00 -
[33]
It's not broken so don't try to fix it.
If you absolutely must change anything, then make nothing in Eve to flag a pilot criminally.
|
Hariya
|
Posted - 2009.05.19 16:35:00 -
[34]
Originally by: Parmala Udoni
The sheer number of threads indicates that there is a problem.
Argumentum ad populum.
|
Parmala Udoni
|
Posted - 2009.05.19 16:36:00 -
[35]
Originally by: Hariya
Originally by: Parmala Udoni
The sheer number of threads indicates that there is a problem.
Argumentum ad populum.
lol
I prefer "the squeaky wheel gets the grease." It's not quite so pompous.
|
Hariya
|
Posted - 2009.05.19 16:46:00 -
[36]
Originally by: Parmala Udoni I prefer "the squeaky wheel gets the grease." It's not quite so pompous.
Sorry, my intent was not to be pompous. I just happen to have studied argumentation and logics formally, and as I am not a native English speaker I have nearly no knowledge of such sayings.
The truth just is that the fact that something gets voted by many, or brought up by many, does not mean that they are correct. In fact it rarely even correlates with anything except to prove that two things are abundant in universe: helium and stupidity.
Oh, I recalled one saying. 900 billion flies love eating ****, so it must be perfect food for you too?
|
Aargh
|
Posted - 2009.05.19 16:58:00 -
[37]
Please kill a profession off because someone occasionally salvages my wrecks in the overpopulated mission hub I play in.
The fail is strong in this one.
|
silken mouth
|
Posted - 2009.05.19 17:09:00 -
[38]
Originally by: Aargh Please kill a profession off because someone occasionally salvages my wrecks in the overpopulated mission hub I play in.
suggestion number 4 doesnt do that....
|
Kel Nissa
|
Posted - 2009.05.19 17:26:00 -
[39]
Quote: The truth just is that the fact that something gets voted by many, or brought up by many, does not mean that they are correct. In fact it rarely even correlates with anything except to prove that two things are abundant in universe: helium and stupidity.
The truth is also that even if it does not prove that something is correct, it does also not prove that they are wrong.
Or should i follow your argumentation more stright forward? Just because many are voting "the current featuerset has no issue", it does not mean that they are correct.
To summarize: your argumentation proves nothing.
|
Lear Hepburn
Caldari Ascendant Strategies Inc. The Transcendent
|
Posted - 2009.05.19 17:28:00 -
[40]
Originally by: Gypsio III
Originally by: Abrazzar
Originally by: Santiago Fahahrri It's not broke, don't fix it.
If it works, improve it.
I suggest that we improve salvaging by making it a CONCORDable offence. You are desecrating a war grave, after all. This will immensely improve the value of salvaged components.
I also suggest that we stop salvaging this thread, over and over again.
Only threats to life are Concordable offences. Remember that this particular thread is about consistency.
|
|
Hariya
|
Posted - 2009.05.19 17:29:00 -
[41]
Originally by: Kel Nissa To summarize: your argumentation proves nothing.
Usually things are not before they are proven to be. That's the order of things. However in argumentation the one making a claim first has the obligation to come with proof first. That means OP's point. That is what was just basically shot down, making all the rest in the whole thread just 100% moot points.
|
Lear Hepburn
Caldari Ascendant Strategies Inc. The Transcendent
|
Posted - 2009.05.19 17:30:00 -
[42]
Edited by: Lear Hepburn on 19/05/2009 17:30:29
Originally by: Hariya
Originally by: Parmala Udoni I prefer "the squeaky wheel gets the grease." It's not quite so pompous.
Sorry, my intent was not to be pompous. I just happen to have studied argumentation and logics formally, and as I am not a native English speaker I have nearly no knowledge of such sayings.
The truth just is that the fact that something gets voted by many, or brought up by many, does not mean that they are correct. In fact it rarely even correlates with anything except to prove that two things are abundant in universe: helium and stupidity.
Oh, I recalled one saying. 900 billion flies love eating ****, so it must be perfect food for you too?
I too have studied formal logic, and the use argument ad populum only stands if the argument can be proven to stand on other grounds or can be shown to not be dependant on popularity. By your use of the argument democracy is itself a logical fallacy.
As to your one saying, I am not a fly.
|
Lear Hepburn
Caldari Ascendant Strategies Inc. The Transcendent
|
Posted - 2009.05.19 17:35:00 -
[43]
Originally by: Hariya
Originally by: Kel Nissa To summarize: your argumentation proves nothing.
Usually things are not before they are proven to be. That's the order of things. However in argumentation the one making a claim first has the obligation to come with proof first. That means OP's point. That is what was just basically shot down, making all the rest in the whole thread just 100% moot points.
You mean burden of proof.
Then you missed my point. Read it again: it was a call for consistency in the mechanics which currently does not exist and I believe is causing the current dissatisfaction with the mechanic as it stands. All this was in the opening post.
That the dissatisfaction exists is demonstrable through the number of threads regarding ninja salvaging; that the inconsistency exists is demonstratable by trying to interact with a wreck; that the inconsistency is the cause of the dissatisfaction is a hypothesis I put forward in my opening thread, and one which can be proven or disproven by resolving the inconsistency in any of the manners I put forth in my opening posts.
|
Khalia Nestune
Suddenly Ninjas Tear Extraction And Reclamation Service
|
Posted - 2009.05.19 23:49:00 -
[44]
Originally by: Santiago Fahahrri It's not broke, don't fix it.
|
Aargh
|
Posted - 2009.05.20 00:49:00 -
[45]
Originally by: silken mouth
Originally by: Aargh Please kill a profession off because someone occasionally salvages my wrecks in the overpopulated mission hub I play in.
suggestion number 4 doesnt do that....
Yes it does unless you make wrecks scannable. CCP will not do that for performance reasons, I would imagine. |
Fullmetal Jackass
|
Posted - 2009.05.20 01:17:00 -
[46]
Edited by: Fullmetal Jackass on 20/05/2009 01:22:15
Originally by: Hariya Oh, I recalled one saying. 900 billion flies love eating ****, so it must be perfect food for you too?
It would be, if you were a fly.
I totally agree that just because something is popular doesn't mean it's right. However volume of complaint is usually a pretty good indicator that customer service needs to get on the ball.
Originally by: Hariya Usually things are not before they are proven to be. That's the order of things. However in argumentation the one making a claim first has the obligation to come with proof first. That means OP's point. That is what was just basically shot down, making all the rest in the whole thread just 100% moot points.
It seems to me that the OP's purpose was to facilitate productive discussion of a topic many people feel strongly about. It seems obvious to me when you read his post.
As I recall he's always dissagreed with me. |
Lear Hepburn
Caldari Ascendant Strategies Inc. The Transcendent
|
Posted - 2009.05.20 04:39:00 -
[47]
Originally by: Fullmetal Jackass It seems to me that the OP's purpose was to facilitate productive discussion of a topic many people feel strongly about. It seems obvious to me when you read his post.
As I recall he's always dissagreed with me.
Absolutely right. This should be clear from the second senctence of the opening post:
Originally by: Lear Hepburn My intent here is to suggest what I see as the options, talk about a few of the clear pros and cons, and hopefully promote some unbiased discussion about each.
And, for the record, I still disagree with you |
Tamahra
Danke fuer den Fisch
|
Posted - 2009.05.20 10:30:00 -
[48]
Edited by: Tamahra on 20/05/2009 10:34:28 fail arguments are fail. and they are so strong in this thread.
fact is: just because a vocal minority is trying to make something look popular, doesn't mean it's right.
Quite a bunch of mmo¦s have been patched into total trash, because of that vocal minority on the forums that constantly whined and mourned, until the developers believed those and gave them what they desired. Best example: Ultima Online / Trammel.
EA wanted to attract more players so badly and cater the game to a much wider audience so they introduced trammel (they actually believed UO was to harsh of a game to bring in more customers, due to the forum whiners). But where does UO stand now: From the day Trammel was introduced, their subs never increased anymore, but constantly declined from there.
Another good example is star wars galaxies: Why would someone ever introduce the bulls.thit that was the NGE, if not for trying to turn it from a good solid game into a huge cash cow. But they failed, because they forgot who their loyal playerbase were.
A game can never cater to everyone and their mother, unless its some stupid childish braindead crap like WoW.
Be careful what you wish for.
|
Fullmetal Jackass
|
Posted - 2009.05.20 10:48:00 -
[49]
Originally by: Tamahra Quite a bunch of mmo¦s have been patched into total trash, because of that vocal minority on the forums that constantly whined and mourned, until the developers believed those and gave them what they desired.
Changing a minor high sec mechanic isn't going to kill EVE. Eve is plenty hardcore. It's always gonna be hardcore. Salvaging cowers in corner of the basement in a house on the other side of town from hardcore.
|
silken mouth
|
Posted - 2009.05.20 12:46:00 -
[50]
Originally by: Tamahra Edited by: Tamahra on 20/05/2009 10:34:28 fail arguments are fail. and they are so strong in this thread.
fact is: just because a vocal minority is trying to make something look popular, doesn't mean it's right.
And therefore it is nerver going to be implemented, like CovOps cloaks on Stealtbombers, right? oh, wait.....
Originally by: Fullmetal Jackass
Changing a minor high sec mechanic isn't going to kill EVE. Eve is plenty hardcore. It's always gonna be hardcore. Salvaging cowers in corner of the basement in a house on the other side of town from hardcore.
nicely put...
|
|
Lear Hepburn
Caldari Ascendant Strategies Inc. The Transcendent
|
Posted - 2009.05.20 15:16:00 -
[51]
Originally by: Tamahra Edited by: Tamahra on 20/05/2009 10:34:28 fail arguments are fail. and they are so strong in this thread.
Feel free to back that up with anything even closely resembling an argument at any point.
Quote: fact is: just because a vocal minority is trying to make something look popular, doesn't mean it's right.
Totally agree, and I wish the government would bow to less minority pressure groups. I did nothing more than point out an inconsistency in the current game mechanics which, if resolved, may silence that vocal minority. What are your thoughts on that inconsistency?
Quote: Quite a bunch of mmo¦s have been patched into total trash, because of that vocal minority on the forums that constantly whined and mourned, until the developers believed those and gave them what they desired. Best example: Ultima Online / Trammel.
EA wanted to attract more players so badly and cater the game to a much wider audience so they introduced trammel (they actually believed UO was to harsh of a game to bring in more customers, due to the forum whiners). But where does UO stand now: From the day Trammel was introduced, their subs never increased anymore, but constantly declined from there.
Another good example is star wars galaxies: Why would someone ever introduce the bulls.thit that was the NGE, if not for trying to turn it from a good solid game into a huge cash cow. But they failed, because they forgot who their loyal playerbase were.
A game can never cater to everyone and their mother, unless its some stupid childish braindead crap like WoW.
Be careful what you wish for.
Nobody is suggesting a huge change like, say, ambulation or wormholes; I am merely suggesting a rethink of a current nonsensical game inconsistency.
|
Parmala Udoni
|
Posted - 2009.05.21 14:20:00 -
[52]
Originally by: Hariya
Originally by: Parmala Udoni I prefer "the squeaky wheel gets the grease." It's not quite so pompous.
Sorry, my intent was not to be pompous. I just happen to have studied argumentation and logics formally, and as I am not a native English speaker I have nearly no knowledge of such sayings.
The truth just is that the fact that something gets voted by many, or brought up by many, does not mean that they are correct. In fact it rarely even correlates with anything except to prove that two things are abundant in universe: helium and stupidity.
Oh, I recalled one saying. 900 billion flies love eating ****, so it must be perfect food for you too?
If you've studied logic then you must know what a false equivalency is.
|
Abrazzar
|
Posted - 2009.05.21 14:55:00 -
[53]
Or why not just overhaul the whole wreck/mission mechanic? And top it off with a T1 production change already been pondered about by the devs a while ago: T1 Construction Components.
- Wrecks no longer have modules in them. - Wrecks are not owned. - Activating a mission acceleration gate will aggress you to the mission owner and gang and corp unless you are part of the gang or corp. - Salvaging will yield salvage, T1 components and Meta Components that work as BPCs for meta level items.
So mission runners can attack intruders if they want to, wrecks will no longer confuse with ownership, T1 components drop amount can be controlled for mineral reprocessing yield and meta components don't reprocess at all while still adding meta modules to the market.
So no one will be happy and everything is balanced. -------- Ideas for: Mining
|
Lear Hepburn
Caldari Ascendant Strategies Inc. The Transcendent
|
Posted - 2009.05.21 21:06:00 -
[54]
Originally by: Abrazzar Or why not just overhaul the whole wreck/mission mechanic? And top it off with a T1 production change already been pondered about by the devs a while ago: T1 Construction Components.
- Wrecks no longer have modules in them. - Wrecks are not owned. - Activating a mission acceleration gate will aggress you to the mission owner and gang and corp unless you are part of the gang or corp. - Salvaging will yield salvage, T1 components and Meta Components that work as BPCs for meta level items.
So mission runners can attack intruders if they want to, wrecks will no longer confuse with ownership, T1 components drop amount can be controlled for mineral reprocessing yield and meta components don't reprocess at all while still adding meta modules to the market.
So no one will be happy and everything is balanced.
That is a complete rework of the salvage and loot system, something which is beyond the range of this thread. While I accept there is a plethora of methods of rewarding people for kills the scope of this thread involves keeping largely he same methodology. This is backed up in the reasons for my rejection of OPTION 3 as detailed on page 1.
|
Abrazzar
|
Posted - 2009.05.21 21:25:00 -
[55]
Originally by: Lear Hepburn That is a complete rework of the salvage and loot system, something which is beyond the range of this thread. While I accept there is a plethora of methods of rewarding people for kills the scope of this thread involves keeping largely he same methodology. This is backed up in the reasons for my rejection of OPTION 3 as detailed on page 1.
Your option 3 rejection does not even touch my option. I am not proposing the removal of wrecks and invalidation of the salvaging profession. Quite the opposite, I'm proposing an empowerment of it by making any and all loot salvage based. -------- Ideas for: Mining
|
Lear Hepburn
Caldari Ascendant Strategies Inc. The Transcendent
|
Posted - 2009.05.21 21:42:00 -
[56]
Originally by: Abrazzar
Originally by: Lear Hepburn That is a complete rework of the salvage and loot system, something which is beyond the range of this thread. While I accept there is a plethora of methods of rewarding people for kills the scope of this thread involves keeping largely he same methodology. This is backed up in the reasons for my rejection of OPTION 3 as detailed on page 1.
Your option 3 rejection does not even touch my option. I am not proposing the removal of wrecks and invalidation of the salvaging profession. Quite the opposite, I'm proposing an empowerment of it by making any and all loot salvage based.
What I said in my rejection of option 3 was: "I canÆt see CCP doing this to be honest, as it is a relatively new mechanic which seems to be generally liked." Maybe this wasn't clear enough but it effectively says that the mechanic as it stands works (insofar as any loot type mechanic works) and therefore is unlikely to be radically altered in any way, including removal. Your suggestion, while it may or may not work (insofar as any loot type mechanic works) would constitute such a radical alteration and is therefore not considered within the scope of this thread, i.e. the resolution of the inconsistncy which is explained in detail in my opening post.
|
Fullmetal Jackass
|
Posted - 2009.05.22 05:53:00 -
[57]
Edited by: Fullmetal Jackass on 22/05/2009 05:54:46
Originally by: Abrazzar
Originally by: Lear Hepburn That is a complete rework of the salvage and loot system, something which is beyond the range of this thread. While I accept there is a plethora of methods of rewarding people for kills the scope of this thread involves keeping largely he same methodology. This is backed up in the reasons for my rejection of OPTION 3 as detailed on page 1.
Your option 3 rejection does not even touch my option. I am not proposing the removal of wrecks and invalidation of the salvaging profession. Quite the opposite, I'm proposing an empowerment of it by making any and all loot salvage based.
And then we'd be right back where we started. With loot cans that anyone can take from, only now you need a module to pick it. I do kinda like the idea, but I don't think many people will go for it. It does makes sence though.
|
Fullmetal Jackass
|
Posted - 2009.05.22 05:58:00 -
[58]
Originally by: Abrazzar Or why not just overhaul the whole wreck/mission mechanic? And top it off with a T1 production change already been pondered about by the devs a while ago: T1 Construction Components.
- Wrecks no longer have modules in them. - Wrecks are not owned. - Activating a mission acceleration gate will aggress you to the mission owner and gang and corp unless you are part of the gang or corp. - Salvaging will yield salvage, T1 components and Meta Components that work as BPCs for meta level items.
So mission runners can attack intruders if they want to, wrecks will no longer confuse with ownership, T1 components drop amount can be controlled for mineral reprocessing yield and meta components don't reprocess at all while still adding meta modules to the market.
So no one will be happy and everything is balanced.
Actually, ya know what, good enough. This solves several problems at once. I could live with this.
|
OC 2av2
|
Posted - 2009.05.22 18:36:00 -
[59]
Edited by: OC 2av2 on 22/05/2009 18:39:25 Edited by: OC 2av2 on 22/05/2009 18:37:46 My vote:
Wrecks and contamination in it are unowned same as asteroids from the moment of creating wreck.
Explanation:
The nature solves similar problems very easy and very clear. We need to learn from THE NATURE.
It must be so, as given in the nature of the food chain. Who are stronger those are righteous. If the stronger got satisfaction of the nourishment and going away, then the prey is for those who are strongest of those who are left so on and so far.
I am not a naturalist, but it looks something like that:
Predator -> smaller predators -> birds -> rats -> bugs = no body remains.
Salvaging is like ôClear as you goö and no body remains. So I am thinking in this way: 1. Mission runner Kills NPC (A Predator kills a victim) 2. Mission runner takes cargo content an salvage it (Predator eats his victim) 3. Mission runner out of cargo (Predator satisfaction of the nourishment) 4. Mission runner wraps away (Predator going away) 5. Stronger Salvaging Ninjas with good ships and/or cool drones attempt to salvage rest wrecks (Smaller predators occupying body remains and eat it) 6. Weaker Salvagers, accidental people on frigates or even on rookie ships are observing Stronger Salvaging Ninjas, from so far distance, because Ninjas have OMGWTFBBQCOOL ships and can pop them if they comes too close. (Weaker predators, birds, rats are waiting in the queue)
Obviously:
If Mission runner is weaker as Salvaging Ninja, then Mission runner can lost everything and just save his ship by warping away as soon as possible without any loot, salvage or such. (If Predator who killed victim is weaker (like wolf or jackal) than another Predator (like Tiger or Lion), then after killing victim he can lost his prey.)
So, Ladies and Gentlemen, and CCP (which contains both of types),
I suggest for all of you apply intelligence of THE NATURE Moreover, please do not reinvent the wheel! It invented already!
|
Kel Nissa
|
Posted - 2009.05.22 19:17:00 -
[60]
Quote: 5. Stronger Salvaging Ninjas with good ships and/or cool drones attempt to salvage rest wrecks (Smaller predators occupying body remains and eat it)
You fail here. They are not stronger. They are just invulnerable because of concord.
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |