|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
HeIIfire11
|
Posted - 2011.04.23 19:37:00 -
[1]
It is bad game design...period.
If it wasn't the wreck they are salvaging shouldnt be yellow with or without cargo.
If it wasn't you should be able to scan and warp to the wreck..not the player running the mission.
If it wasn't it wouldn't have the mission runners name on it.
If that isn't bad game design I don't know what is.It's there for the little abused griefers in eve that get their kicks from ****ing people off.
Just start shooting the wrecks out from in front of them starting with the large ones.Its funny to see them scatter from wreck to wreck and get nothing lol.
Originally by: Tippia What rewards are you willing to give up to be the default owner of the salvage?
You stop posting and I'll salvage it and even bring it to the ninja salvagerAlways want to be so smart but can't see that this is bad game design at its best.0/10 for you..like always.
|
HeIIfire11
|
Posted - 2011.04.23 20:16:00 -
[2]
Originally by: Tippia
Originally by: HeIIfire11 It is bad game design...period.
Why?
See above.
Originally by: Tippia
Originally by: HeIIfire11 If it wasn't the wreck they are salvaging shouldnt be yellow with or without cargo.
Wreck abandonment wasn't in the game when salvaging was introduced ù it's not bad game design that a function that appeared four years later wasn't being employed. But yes, that should happen automatically if the wreck is empty.
But it doesn't...bad game design.
Originally by: Tippia
Originally by: HeIIfire11 If it wasn't you should be able to scan and warp to the wreck..not the player running the mission.
That's a problem with the scanning system, not with salvaging.
Problem none the less and....bad game design.
Originally by: Tippia
Originally by: HeIIfire11 If that isn't bad game design I don't know what is.
Not really. It creates competition over resources ù PvP. That's not really bad game design in a PvP-centric game.
No,it's a sandbox.If it was a "pvp-centric" game there would be no single player content.
Originally by: Tippia
Originally by: HeIIfire11 You stop posting and I'll salvage it and even bring it to the ninja salvager
Why should I stop posting?
Because you're a ccp fanboy and will come up with all kind of bull**** to try and convince people that this is a perfect game and everything is working as intended when the forum is full of complaints about bad game design.
Originally by: Tippia
Originally by: HeIIfire11 Always want to be so smart but can't see that this is bad game design at its best
Why?
Because you weren't breastfed long enough.
That's why fanboy.
|
HeIIfire11
|
Posted - 2011.04.23 20:36:00 -
[3]
Originally by: Tippia Herp derp
I just explained it to you.You read what I wrote and think it over and don't give me that technical limitation crap lol.This topic comes up every few months and creates pages of discussion but no,it's not bad game design right?
And pvp-centric does not mean sandbox,google is your friend.
As far as me having read anything you said..it's not worth it because you're not out for a discussion but instead to beat your one sided opinion into someones head with lame excuses which always seem to favor ccp.Hence you're a fanboy and a complete waste of time.
|
HeIIfire11
|
Posted - 2011.04.23 21:06:00 -
[4]
Originally by: Tippia
Originally by: HeIIfire11 don't give me that technical limitation crap
Why not? The scanning mechanics are causing them technical headaches as it is.
That's not the players problem..just the cause of bad game design.
Originally by: Tippia
Originally by: HeIIfire11 This topic comes up every few months and creates pages of discussion but no,it's not bad game design right?
No. People making baseless assumptions about reward structures because they haven't taken the time to educate themselves is not bad game design.
In fact, I'd rather say it would be bad game design if people were given rewards without doing anything to earn themà and yet, that's exactly what the OP is asking for. Why should that happen?
You are making baseless assumptions about reward structures by saying people are given rewards without doing anything to earn them.Others might say doing the mission which creates the wreck is enough to earn them.Opinions are like *******s..everyone has one and thats all you're bringing to the table..your opinion.Doesn't make it a fact.Why should they do even more to earn the salvage?
Originally by: Tippia
Originally by: HeIIfire11 And pvp-centric does not mean sandbox
No, but multiplayer sandbox means PvP (or a very limited sandboxà but fortunately, EVE doesn't have that huge restriction).
Who said anything about "multiplayer sandbox"?Eve calls itself a sandbox..not multiplayer sandbox.A sandbox that includes pvp but is not limited to only pvp.Again your opinion based on what aspect of the game you choose to accept.
In my opinion my case looks pretty good because you have nothing more than I do at this point..an opinon.
|
HeIIfire11
|
Posted - 2011.04.23 21:45:00 -
[5]
Originally by: Tippia
Originally by: HeIIfire11 That's not the players problem..just the cause of bad game design.
So you're saying that not being able to cram 30,000 people into Jita is bad game design? And speaking of which: what bad game design does this technical limitation cause?
What are you talking about?Stay on the topic please and don't compare this to something it has nothing at all to do with.Cramming 30,000 people in one system and changing a color and status of a wreck when looted is two complete different things.
Originally by: Tippia
Originally by: HeIIfire11 You are making baseless assumptions about reward structures by saying people are given rewards without doing anything to earn them.
No. I'm simply restating what has been said about the reward structure of missions. There is no assumption there.
Without a quote what you say is worthless..a lot has been said.Show me where ccp explains exactly this.If you do pull that one from somewhere it will just prove my point about it being bad game design because the wreck is still yellow to the person salvaging it.Also that player gets concorded when he shoots my yellow empty wreck that "isn't mine".
Originally by: Tippia
Originally by: HeIIfire11 Others might say doing the mission which creates the wreck is enough to earn them.
àand they contradict the stated design purpose.
Again without quote your statement is worthless.Stated where?Quote or it didn't happen.
Originally by: Tippia
Originally by: HeIIfire11 Why should they do even more to earn the salvage?
Because otherwise it might as well be removed from the game. If they don't want to engage in the activity that earns them salvage, that activity serves no purpose.
What you don't understand is that the problem people have with this is that its risk free for the salvager.All that's being asked is that he is flagged so that we can do what you say this game is all about..pvp.If a mission runner wants the salvage he has to kill the rat,what risk does the salvager have?None.No risk..no danger.Bad game design.
Originally by: Tippia Salvage was added for a reason. Padding mission-runners wallets is not it.
Again..quote what reason.I doubt it's padding a risk free griefers wallet either.
|
HeIIfire11
|
Posted - 2011.04.23 21:58:00 -
[6]
Originally by: Karak Terrel That Teenrage..
No it's a fact.If I choose to cloak an alt or two in t3 cruisers to wait for the scum it wont be my expensive ship that dies now will it.Sadly we will never know due to bad game design.
|
HeIIfire11
|
Posted - 2011.04.23 22:33:00 -
[7]
Edited by: HeIIfire11 on 23/04/2011 22:35:46
Originally by: Tippia
Originally by: HeIIfire11 What are you talking about?
You're claiming that technical limitations are bad game design. I'm asking you how.
Where is the technical limitation first of all?Quote where ccp states that this is the case.It can't be so technaly limited to change the status of the wreck when this mechanic already exists.By abandoning the wreck and when looting it,it changes status from full to empty..from yellow to blue.I don't see the limitation,only lazy coding and/or bad game design.
Originally by: Tippia
Originally by: HeIIfire11 Without a quote what you say is worthless.
The quote has already been posted.
Originally by: CCP Prism x CCP Prism X ôit'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 [sic] any further.ö
Like I said,It's designed for "people who want to roam and look for salvage" but you dont look for salvage now do you?No..you look for the player.Bad game design.If it wasn't bad game design you could scan and warp to the abandoned wreck..not the player.Quote is nothing more than proof of bad game design and lazy unfinished "mini professions".
Originally by: Tippia
Originally by: HeIIfire11 If you do pull that one from somewhere it will just prove my point about it being bad game design
Why is it bad game design that you have to earn your rewards?
It's bad game design because the salvager doesn't do anything or take any risks to earn it.Its a free give away for him protected by concord.
Originally by: Tippia
Originally by: HeIIfire11 What you don't understand is that the problem people have with this is that its risk free for the salvager.
Yes? It's risk free for both parties aside from the fact that it's a competition. You risk being too slow. You stand to gain some salvage.
It's not risk free to the mission runner who has to fit his ship right,tank the dps and risk a ship that costs 20 more than the salvagers ship which has no risk at all.
Originally by: Tippia
Originally by: HeIIfire11 All that's being asked is that he is flagged so that we can do what you say this game is all about..pvp.
It's already about PvP. And again, if it's flagged, the mission runner has been given ownership over stuff without having earned it yet. Why should that happen?.
Again..we are going in circles.The mission runner has earned it by killing it and having earned the ship and tools to do so in a lvl 4 mission.The ninja does nothing but risk free scanning.
Originally by: Tippia
Originally by: HeIIfire11 what risk does the salvager have? None.
It's the same risk for both competitors, yes: that they might not be fast enough to win the prize.
It's the same risk?really?Last I checked a t2 bs costs a bit more than some cheap destroyer.Not to mention the mission runner has to tank it all at the same time.Sry you're talking out your ass and pushing your completely pointless opinion here again.Doesn't make your case any stronger.
Originally by: Tippia
Originally by: HeIIfire11 I doubt it's padding a risk free griefers wallet either.
Who's griefing? It's there to pad salvagers' wallets. And guess what: it does exactly that.
I guess you started playing a day or two ago and missed the part where 90% of the time the goal of the salvager is to get into a fight with the mission runner or **** him off.Its no secret that eve is known and loved for the ability to grief people.But let you tell it it's all about the poor savager trying to make a living lol.
Origina... |
HeIIfire11
|
Posted - 2011.04.23 22:42:00 -
[8]
Edited by: HeIIfire11 on 23/04/2011 22:44:49 Edited by: HeIIfire11 on 23/04/2011 22:42:20
Originally by: Corina's Bodyguard
Anyway, the current reason the wreck stays yellow is because the can inside it (which belongs tot he player who killed the ship, usually) is yellow. The actual wreck has no color, no ownership.
Empty or full..the wreck stays yellow...bad game design.
Not only that but my corp name is on it empty or full.Something has my name on it ßnd concord protects it when anyone but me touches it..it's mine.
|
HeIIfire11
|
Posted - 2011.04.23 22:49:00 -
[9]
Edited by: HeIIfire11 on 23/04/2011 22:50:28
Originally by: Corina's Bodyguard
The wreck isn't yellow. The cargo container that must be inside the wreck so that the server doesn't boom is yellow.
If you want to look at it from a role playing point of view be my guest but fact is that its a yellow pixel wreck with my name on it.I can role play and say it's yellow because sleepers ****ed on it..doesn't make it so.
And if the server goes boom it's not my fault but due to bad game design lol.
There is no can inside that wreck..it's spawned when you salvage it.
|
HeIIfire11
|
Posted - 2011.04.23 23:01:00 -
[10]
Edited by: HeIIfire11 on 23/04/2011 23:05:54 Edited by: HeIIfire11 on 23/04/2011 23:05:34 I was about to break down your last post Tippia but I had to stop as I noticed you're losing ground.Your answers are nonsense and you are running out of arguments and resorting to confusing your opinions with facts again.
Your using things that you claim were said at fanfest 2009 which are documented nowhere and can't be proven.Looks like you hit a dead end what?
As fun as it was I'll leave you to your opinion.Better luck next time I'd say.
My arguments on the other hand are facts.
1.Wrecks are and stay yellow. 2.The player is scanned and not the wrecks which rules out roaming for wrecks lol. 3.Scanning down a mr and freely picking off his wrecks includes no risk at all. 4.Concord will still pwn you if you shoot my emty wreck proving that it is mine or bad game design.CCP Prism x's quote proves that it is the later..and like I stated in my original post.Bad game design.
|
|
HeIIfire11
|
Posted - 2011.04.23 23:10:00 -
[11]
Originally by: Corina's Bodyguard
Originally by: HeIIfire11 Edited by: HeIIfire11 on 23/04/2011 22:50:28
Originally by: Corina's Bodyguard
The wreck isn't yellow. The cargo container that must be inside the wreck so that the server doesn't boom is yellow.
If you want to look at it from a role playing point of view be my guest but fact is that its a yellow pixel wreck with my name on it.I can role play and say it's yellow because sleepers ****ed on it..doesn't make it so.
And if the server goes boom it's not my fault but due to bad game design lol.
There is no can inside that wreck..it's spawned when you salvage it.
There is a can inside the wreck, otherwise you could not open it.
As for your giving up, its very lame to stop making arguments and continuing to claim you are right.
No one said anything about giving up.If he's too hard headed to accept when hes wrong thats not my problem.
I'm sorry you can't come up with anything better than "there's a can inside and that's what makes it yellow lol.Now thats just plain stupid if you ask me.
|
HeIIfire11
|
Posted - 2011.04.23 23:15:00 -
[12]
Originally by: Yuki Kulotsuki
Originally by: HeIIfire11 Your using things that you claim were said at fanfest 2009 which are documented nowhere and can't be proven.
Hurf blurf furf. You're not even trying anymore are you?
No because his last post put him on the same lvl as a troll and his answers are no longer productive.They have the purpose of just being there to have answered something but have no real ground.At that point it really becomes a whaste of my time.If anyone els has a reasonable argument to add to this discussion I will be glad to answer.
|
HeIIfire11
|
Posted - 2011.04.23 23:21:00 -
[13]
Edited by: HeIIfire11 on 23/04/2011 23:21:46 Edited by: HeIIfire11 on 23/04/2011 23:21:16
Originally by: HeIIfire11
Originally by: Yuki Kulotsuki
Originally by: HeIIfire11 Your using things that you claim were said at fanfest 2009 which are documented nowhere and can't be proven.
Hurf blurf furf. You're not even trying anymore are you?
No because his last post put him on the same lvl as a troll and his answers are no longer productive.They have the purpose of just being there to have answered something but have no real ground.At that point it really becomes a whaste of my time.If anyone els has a reasonable argument to add to this discussion I will be glad to answer.
Originally by: Tippia
Originally by: HeIIfire11 Your answers are nonsense
Prove it. You have yet to even explain why it's poor game designà
This is what I'm talking about.All my proof is stated in the post above and can be seen in game. Troll on fanboy...troll on.
|
HeIIfire11
|
Posted - 2011.04.23 23:24:00 -
[14]
Originally by: Yuki Kulotsuki
Originally by: HeIIfire11
Originally by: Yuki Kulotsuki
Originally by: HeIIfire11 Your using things that you claim were said at fanfest 2009 which are documented nowhere and can't be proven.
Hurf blurf furf. You're not even trying anymore are you?
No because his last post put him on the same lvl as a troll and his answers are no longer productive.They have the purpose of just being there to have answered something but have no real ground.At that point it really becomes a whaste of my time.If anyone els has a reasonable argument to add to this discussion I will be glad to answer.
Clearly you missed the point while feverishly mistyping your response. Fanfest roundtables are on youtube.
It's not my place to prove his point,let him do it and link.Where are your arguments other than hanging on his ****?
|
HeIIfire11
|
Posted - 2011.04.23 23:40:00 -
[15]
Originally by: Yuki Kulotsuki I make no arguments. Just pointing out someone making a provably false assertion. Continue sputtering on.
Good then I'm glad we agree that you are of no importance.
Originally by: Tippia
Originally by: HeIIfire11 All my proof is stated in the post above and can be seen in game.
Then it should be very simple for you to provide all of the above. How about you go on and do that?
Originally by: HeIIfire11
My arguments on the other hand are facts.
1.Wrecks are and stay yellow. 2.The player is scanned and not the wrecks which rules out roaming for wrecks lol. 3.Scanning down a mr and freely picking off his wrecks includes no risk at all. 4.Concord will still pwn you if you shoot my emty wreck proving that it is mine or bad game design.CCP Prism x's quote proves that it is the later..and like I stated in my original post.Bad game design.
This...
Originally by: CCP Prism X it's a mini profession designed for people who want to roam and look for salvage.
Plus this = bad game design.
Those are my facts.
|
HeIIfire11
|
Posted - 2011.04.23 23:46:00 -
[16]
Originally by: Tippia
Originally by: HeIIfire11 This... Plus this = bad game design.
Why is that? Bad in what way? And why does it matter?
Quote: Those are my facts.
And what's your argument? What do you want changed?
I want the salvager flagged.I want him to risk losing his ship just like the mission runner does even though you can't compare the prise of the two losses.
Simple easy change that brings forth what you say this game is all about..pvp.Nothing more ,nothing less.
|
HeIIfire11
|
Posted - 2011.04.24 00:04:00 -
[17]
Originally by: Tippia The mission runner may (and I stress that due to how very unlikely it is) lose his ship in the mission, but that's what the mission rewards are for: to compensate for that risk.
Right because 20 million isk compensates for losing a mission battleship,t3 cruiser etc.Sorry I see no compensation there. It's a risk for the mission runner because he has to tank the mission with his ******ed pve fitting and at the same time defend his salvage while the salvager is in a fast frig.The mission runner is webbed and scrammed in most cases which gives the salvager a clear advantage.The risk of competeing for the salvage is hardly fair.
|
HeIIfire11
|
Posted - 2011.04.24 00:08:00 -
[18]
Edited by: HeIIfire11 on 24/04/2011 00:09:48
Originally by: Tippia How will this be handled when it's not NPC wrecks we're talking about?
This..is the reason for the unfinished miniprofession and bad game design.They don't take the time to figure this out so they just threw in sloppy content without thinking it through.Hence bad game design like I said.
Edit:And unfinished content which they are very known for.I'm sure you're not going to argue there
|
HeIIfire11
|
Posted - 2011.04.24 00:28:00 -
[19]
Edited by: HeIIfire11 on 24/04/2011 00:36:23 Edited by: HeIIfire11 on 24/04/2011 00:29:39
Originally by: Glyken Touchon
Originally by: HeIIfire11 It's the same risk?really?Last I checked a t2 bs costs a bit more than some cheap destroyer.Not to mention the mission runner has to tank it all at the same time.Sry you're talking out your ass and pushing your completely pointless opinion here again.Doesn't make your case any stronger.
If you are already in a maurauder, aren't you even further ahead in the race to salvage the wrecks?
Originally by: HeIIfire11 No it's a fact.If I choose to cloak an alt or two in t3 cruisers to wait for the scum it wont be my expensive ship that dies now will it.Sadly we will never know due to bad game design.
If you are willing to have a couple of t3 alts hanging around just in case a ninja arrives, why don't you have them hanging around now salvaging? That way there are no wrecks to be "stolen"
Originally by: HeIIfire11 I guess you started playing a day or two ago and missed the part where 90% of the time the goal of the salvager is to get into a fight with the mission runner or **** him off.
The people who only salvage are probably in it for the ISK. If they start looting as well, then they are either chancers or after a fight.
I have maurauders maxed just like all the weapons I use including the support skills.My certificates are public.Might need an update but for the most part they are public.I don't salvage either.1 or 2 missions at most if they are worth it and I feel like it.I hardly get a ninja in my mission at all because I complete them too fast for the fail ninja to scan me down.I'm not trying to say change this for me,but just stating that its unfair that a ninja risks nothing and its due to lazy coding and unfinished game content.
Edit:Thats like me going into a wormhole with a two week old character and happily salvaging sleeper salvage risk free under the protection of concord.I did not earn access to that type of salvage anymore than a ninja earned access to lvl 4 salvage which a mission runner works months just to be able to get at.
|
HeIIfire11
|
Posted - 2011.04.24 00:38:00 -
[20]
Originally by: Tippia
Originally by: HeIIfire11 just stating that its unfair that a ninja risks nothing and its due to lazy coding and unfinished game content.
And the counter-question is: why should he risk something when the competitor doesn't risk anything either?
God you're ignorant..reread the thread I'm not repeating myself for you.
|
|
HeIIfire11
|
Posted - 2011.04.24 01:54:00 -
[21]
Originally by: Tippia
Originally by: Neoexecutor ninja salvaging them is theft plain and simple (and should flag the thief)
Why?
Because.
|
HeIIfire11
|
Posted - 2011.04.24 03:14:00 -
[22]
Edited by: HeIIfire11 on 24/04/2011 03:16:19
Originally by: Neoexecutor
Quote: Do you consider it stealing if someone runs across the finishing line faster than you do?
Since you bring rl analogies to this then i guess everything's fair game. Do you consider somebody taking your paycheck before you could, a race?
Or your income tax.I'll give you the paycheck because thats your reward.But why should you get your taxes as well when I make the effort to file for them first?Your already being compensated for your work with the paychecks you get.Christmas bonus is fair game too then amirite?
Don't forget that if you try to take it from me the cops come and arrest you!
|
HeIIfire11
|
Posted - 2011.04.24 05:34:00 -
[23]
Point is just because ccp says so doen't make it good.The whole logic about omg lvl 4 missions earn too much is wrong.The only thing that earns less is mining and I feel for those poor sobs.In null they earn loads for not much more risk than a mission runner has in high sec if not less.Wormholes make a killing and so does working the market.
On top of the constant nerfing that lvl4 missions get you now have this flawed "miniprofession" where any noob two weeks old can come and help himself to your earnings.And all that risk free under the protection of concord.
And because they are too lazy to figure out how to adjust the game mechanics to work out which wreck flags you and which doean't it just gets left as is like many other half done content they throw at us.
On top of all that you have some almighty-all knowing oracle(Tippia)that will stop at nothing to try and justify their actions.
Why not just remove high sec and see how long the game lasts?
|
HeIIfire11
|
Posted - 2011.04.24 05:46:00 -
[24]
Originally by: Apollo Gabriel
Originally by: HeIIfire11 Point is just because ccp says so doen't make it good.The whole logic about omg lvl 4 missions earn too much is wrong.
I agree with the first sentence, as CCP thinks Hybrids are balanced ...
As to the second, I disagree with you wholeheartedly. You CAN make more doing other things, but it is hard to do them as continuously as you can missions. No limit, just go go go till you fall asleep at the keys. It is basically single player eve, and that in my opinion is a major problem and WHY it is too much isk. Mining depletes, exploration depletes, sleepers deplete, and on and on, BUT missions never die.
I see your point but you said it yourself,missions are the most boring way to make isk;other than mining maybe.But in a wormhole you can earn well over 500 mill,in exploration you can find an item worth over a billion isk.At the end of the day you cant make that much running missions.The market as well,you can earn a billion in a day if you put your mind to it and have the time and isk.
|
HeIIfire11
|
Posted - 2011.04.24 05:57:00 -
[25]
Originally by: Tippia No. I'm simply asking why it needs to be changed. I'm telling you why it is the way it is right now, and you need to explain why it's bad that it works that way and why (and how) it would be improved by doing things differently.
And I have told you over and ove again in this thread why it needs to be changed.You know better though just like in every other thread you post in.
I also explained how it would improve things by flagging the salvager.Again your all knowing attitude wont allow you to see any other point of view other than your own.You can't seem to fathom that ccp threw out some sloppy "miniprofession" that if changed could offer some good pvp combat situations which you say you value so highly.
Keep your opinion its not that I'm trying to convince you of anything.I'm just stating my opinion and that of many others which is why these threads keep popping up.
|
HeIIfire11
|
Posted - 2011.04.24 06:07:00 -
[26]
Originally by: Tippia Yes you can, because of that consistency: you may only earn 20û30M a pop, but you earn it consistently, at will and on demand. And you do it with zero risk. You may only be able to bring in a couple of hundred mill a day, but you can do it any time you like..
Funny you should say this but its not true.Missions have been nerfed so that you can earn as little as 5 mill or less sometimes per mission.And on those that you do earn 20-30 mill its including salvage which isn't mine remember?
Originally by: Tippia Oh, and you can find items worth a quarter-billion ISK in missions too (but that's subject to the same randomness as in exploration)à
This too I have yet too see.In 4 years of running missions as a source of income I have found one....one faction item and it was a small afterburner in the bonus room of ae.Many faction drops have been removed like in worlds collide which I never got any way in 4 years running missions.
|
HeIIfire11
|
Posted - 2011.04.24 06:14:00 -
[27]
Originally by: Tippia
Originally by: HeIIfire11 I also explained how it would improve things by flagging the salvager.
Yes, you claim it will create PvP. The problem is that there is already PvP, so where's the improvement?
Now you're putting words in my mouth and if you don't want me to do it then show me the same respect.I said pvp combat situations.
Originally by: Tippia
Originally by: HeIIfire11 I'm just stating my opinion and that of many others which is why these threads keep popping up.
And I'm just stating the facts of why the game works the way it does. Hopefullly, someone will be able to explain why it shouldn't work that wayà
Why does everything you say have to be facts?Oh yeah I forgot you're the all-knowing oracle thats right.Thank you for proving my point.Do you work for ccp?No,until then your "facts" will remain your opinion to me.And as such..as worthless as a fart in the wind.
|
HeIIfire11
|
Posted - 2011.04.24 06:27:00 -
[28]
Edited by: HeIIfire11 on 24/04/2011 06:34:25
Originally by: Tippia Why is it a good thing that more mission runners get killed?
Again the all-knowing oracle has spoken!You just know the outcome don't you.Don't try to put everyone in the same fail boat you're sitting in okay?It is like everything else..your opinion.At 30-80 km any ship smaller than a cruiser will snap even with my fail guns.And a single cruiser wont make it to me in that time to get into orbit.
But like I said well never know unless ccp changes it so its not worth talking about..yet.
|
HeIIfire11
|
Posted - 2011.04.24 06:36:00 -
[29]
Originally by: Tippia
Originally by: HeIIfire11 You just know the outcome don't you.
What other outcome would there be?
I'll leave it to someone else to teach you how to play.I'm am no fortune teller like you but in my mission space it wouldn't be that easy I can tell you that now.
|
HeIIfire11
|
Posted - 2011.04.24 06:45:00 -
[30]
Originally by: Tippia
Originally by: HeIIfire11 I'll leave it to someone else to teach you how to play.
What does that have to do with anything?
Quote: I'm am no fortune teller like you but in my mission space it wouldn't be that easy I can tell you that now.
Good for you. But it doesn't really answer the question: what other outcome would there be?
àbecause you are considering the potential, possible and probable side-effects of your proposed change, aren't you?
Ok now you're being really dumb.The other outcome is that the ninja dies because it would be a lot of fun to sit there and wait for him.And with enough backup to face **** what ever else he warps in.That would be a possible outcome...sounded out for those who rode the small yellow bus to school.
|
|
HeIIfire11
|
Posted - 2011.04.24 06:54:00 -
[31]
Originally by: Tippia
Originally by: HeIIfire11 Ok now you're being really dumb.The other outcome is that the ninja dies because it would be a lot of fun to sit there and wait for him.
àbut you claim that they are griefers ù don't you think they'll take this into account and actually plan their attacks to match the fine new opportunities the increased aggression rules allow for?
And?May the best man/corp win.Plain and simple just like any other pvp combat encounter.
Originally by: Tippia
Originally by: HeIIfire11 And with enough backup to face **** what ever else he warps in.
Good for you. So why doesn't this already happen?
Because they are protected by concord thats why.And no one will make the effort to set up something like that for tha slight chance that the salvager has the balls to loot something.
|
HeIIfire11
|
Posted - 2011.04.24 07:11:00 -
[32]
Originally by: Tippia
Originally by: HeIIfire11 And?
And that will increase the number of killed mission runners. Is that really what you want to accomplish?
It will also increase the death rate of ninja salvagers.But you just forgot that part right?Like I said..may the best man/corp win.You don't know who will win so stop bringing it up.I've told you what I want to accomplish.Again,reread the thread lol.
Originally by: Tippia
Originally by: HeIIfire11 Because they are protected by concord thats why.
I mean, why does this not already happen in all the cases where it already can happen?
Wut?
Originally by: Tippia
Originally by: HeIIfire11 And no one will make the effort to set up something like that for tha slight chance that the salvager has the balls to loot something.
How large a chance will it be with your change in place?
Quite a bit higher as im sure many mission runners have wanted to blast one knowing the alpha would melt the salvager at that range.I would go to the large mission hubs and setup the flytrap for one or two kills a day.If I die gf.Its better than sitting there watching the risk free salvager clean out the salvage.
|
HeIIfire11
|
Posted - 2011.04.24 07:15:00 -
[33]
Originally by: Neoexecutor
Quote: Why?
Because.
Quote: So why is it such a chore for him to do that and actually earn the salvage?
Because
Quote: Yes. It's kind of the key issue, you knowà
I know...
Quote: I put some effort into finding the great spot yes.
I found a rat and killed it, you found a moon and didn't do ****.
Quote: Why would you have to put them on hold?
Because
Quote: Pretty much all of them can.
Why?
Quote: So don't bring up irrelevant points.
Why? You do.
Quote: Not really, no. It's merely a formality to do so, after all, and you have plenty of advantages as it is. It's not the game's fault if you choose to give up those advantages.
Yes, really, yes.
Quote: No. It's just that he has the rights to it as well.
Why?
Lol thats tippia alright..pointless isn't it?
|
HeIIfire11
|
Posted - 2011.04.24 07:24:00 -
[34]
Originally by: Tippia
Originally by: Neoexecutor WHY?
See the CCP Prism X quote earlier in the thread.
You mean the one that confirms that it's a fail game design?
|
HeIIfire11
|
Posted - 2011.04.24 07:35:00 -
[35]
Originally by: Tippia
Originally by: Neoexecutor Just did. Made as much sense as the last time. Close to none.
Which part did you have problems understanding?
The part where he says "because it's a mini profession designed for people who want to roam and look for salvage" yet you cant scan down wrecks.Theres a lot more wrecks out there with noplayers near them,learn to use your scanner.I hear theres a good tutorial on youtube made by ccp.
|
HeIIfire11
|
Posted - 2011.04.24 08:11:00 -
[36]
Originally by: Tippia
Originally by: Neoexecutor In before "Why does it defy logic?".
So if you can predict the question, why not simply answer it?
Already been answered..reread the thread.
Originally by: Tippia Wrecks are there to provide salvagers with something to salvage from. Why should the salvage belong to you, rather to a salvager, without any effort on your behalf?
Why not?
Originally by: Tippia Stealing your salvage already flags the thief.
Nope.
|
HeIIfire11
|
Posted - 2011.04.24 08:28:00 -
[37]
Originally by: Marlenus Tippia, I am in awe of your ability to continue trying to explain the obvious to the intransigently stupid.
I love these threads, and I love them all the more when my infoblock of pertinent dev quotes lands on page one, the way it did here. As far as I'm concerned, those quotes should be a thread-killer ... but they never are.
As somebody who was looting mission-runner cans all the way back in the days when missions were on the stargates and mission rats didn't even drop wrecks, I'd like to join the chorus of people who think it would be amusing to give these fools what they demand. Another aggression flag? I guarantee the folks who enjoy busting into missions will have more fun with that than the mission runners will!
Your "infoblock of pertinent dev quotes" is worthless because it doesn't address any of the topics mentioned in this thread.That you even refer to those quotes shows that you are infact the stupid one and a fanboy aswell.
0/10
|
HeIIfire11
|
Posted - 2011.04.24 09:36:00 -
[38]
Edited by: HeIIfire11 on 24/04/2011 09:40:38
Originally by: Captain Megadeath Edited by: Captain Megadeath on 24/04/2011 09:24:23
Originally by: Mag's I personally, would love to see ninja salvagers getting flagged. The flood of MR tears on these forums, would explode. (Pardon the pun)
Indeed........ lol
Not only that, but when the missionrunner loses said faction BS/Maruder with officer/faction fittings we can direct their vitrol towards HeIIfire11 and proudly say "Blame him. This change is all his fault because he couldnt grasp the fact that the wreck "you make" is NOT yours BY DESIGN, only the loot dropped is."
We will be up to our necks in delicious carebear tears.....
Why do you just assume that all ninjas are superior?And why do you assume that every mission runner has this officer fit ship? Stereotype much?
Besides that it would still be up to the mission runner if he shoots or not.Ninja tears are better by the way and Im sure there would be plenty of those too.
But go ahead and blame me..no shame in blameJust throw some credit my way when you see a ninja warp in at like 50 km and you one shot him for putting his sticky paws on your wreck.
Originally by: Lady Spank stuff
Who let you out of c&p?Isn't that where all the ninjas live?I bet they want it changed my way as well.More fights and (maybe)more tears.Everyone wins!
|
HeIIfire11
|
Posted - 2011.04.24 09:43:00 -
[39]
Originally by: Thrash Back
Originally by: HeIIfire11
Originally by: Captain Megadeath Edited by: Captain Megadeath on 24/04/2011 09:24:23
Originally by: Mag's I personally, would love to see ninja salvagers getting flagged. The flood of MR tears on these forums, would explode. (Pardon the pun)
Indeed........ lol
Not only that, but when the missionrunner loses said faction BS/Maruder with officer/faction fittings we can direct their vitrol towards HeIIfire11 and proudly say "Blame him. This change is all his fault because he couldnt grasp the fact that the wreck "you make" is NOT yours BY DESIGN, only the loot dropped is."
We will be up to our necks in delicious carebear tears.....
Why do you just assume that all ninjas are superior?And why do you assume that every mission runner has this officer fit ship? Stereotype much?
Besides that it would still be up to the mission runner if he shoots or not.Ninja tears are better by the way and Im sure there would be plenty of those too.
But go ahead and blame me..no shame in blameJust throw some credit my way when you see a ninja warp in at like 50 km and you one shot him for putting his sticky paws on your wreck.
After reading your previous posts complaining about bad game design, my suggestion is that you stop paying CCP if their game design is so bad, and go and play Habbo Hotel or something.
No one's forcing you to play :)
No one force you to read my post either.As for Habbo Hotel..you first.Ill be right behind ya..promise.
|
HeIIfire11
|
Posted - 2011.04.24 10:07:00 -
[40]
Edited by: HeIIfire11 on 24/04/2011 10:10:54
Originally by: Halcyon Ingenium There is a bit of confusion in this thread. The wreck spawns as a result of your actions, but you don't create it. Hence you have no rights to it that are exclusive, outside of being able to tractor it.
You have a point since ccp said they wanted it like that.My point is that is that theres nothing free in eve.Some may say ore is free but it costs you time as well.Why should a ninja salvager be able to zip in without risk and help himself to the salvage?
Not only that but think about what Im asking for a second.Wouldn't it be a lot more fun if the chance to fight for it existed?
Missionrunner creates wreck..ninja comes to claim it..missionrunner has the choice to defend it.9 times out of 10 thats what the ninja wants anyway.Wheres the problem?CCP said so and fanboys follow.Nothing speaks against it really.
Everyone wants the carebears to pvp well heres another small step to get them to do so.
|
|
HeIIfire11
|
Posted - 2011.04.24 10:10:00 -
[41]
Originally by: GoGo Rens Edited by: GoGo Rens on 24/04/2011 10:05:26 Solution to this = empty wrecks should turn blue. Stating that they belong to nobody/anybody. Would stop any confusion as to who owns them.
Thank you.This would be one way to solve it.Why dont they?
Bad game design like I said from the start.
|
HeIIfire11
|
Posted - 2011.04.24 10:16:00 -
[42]
It's just like PI.When you send it to the customs office it isn't in your cargo yet.But I cant wait at the customs office and intercept it either.
But according to the post from ccp you quoted until its in your cargo its not yours.
|
HeIIfire11
|
Posted - 2011.04.24 10:20:00 -
[43]
Edited by: HeIIfire11 on 24/04/2011 10:23:01
Originally by: Tippia And the question remains: if PvP is the answer to the perceived problem, why is it that people hate the PvP that ninja salvaging already creates?
Because people aren't ready for it due to unclear game mechanics.Like I said they still have the option to shoot or not just like they do now.
And because people dislike them for the fact that there is no defense against it other than to shoot yourself in the foot.
|
HeIIfire11
|
Posted - 2011.04.24 10:26:00 -
[44]
Originally by: Avon Edited by: Avon on 24/04/2011 10:21:23 This thread makes me want to go can flipping with my salvage character - see how many of the people who complaining about ninja salvagers really would like it to be PvP flaggable.
I could make a nice graph.
Go ahead I can agree with you that not many will.But should this be changed there will be many who will go looking for this situation with their corps.
I've run missions with corps where there were like 7 of us and one ninja comes in and starts salvaging.The fleet we had together would have face****d anyone who took aggro.We had no choice but to let him be.He didnt get much though because we had two salvagers in there as well.
|
HeIIfire11
|
Posted - 2011.04.24 10:35:00 -
[45]
Originally by: Avon
Originally by: HeIIfire11
Go ahead I can agree with you that not many will.But should this be changed there will be many who will go looking for this situation with their corps.
I've run missions with corps where there were like 7 of us and one ninja comes in and starts salvaging.The fleet we had together would have face****d anyone who took aggro.We had no choice but to let him be.He didnt get much though because we had two salvagers in there as well.
Yeah, except you don't know how many friends the salvager has just waiting for you to attack .. same as can flippers.
Even if you factor in the odd group who would be ready and willing to PvP, the overall effect would be a new flood of tears from the majority.
Like I also said before this is possible yes but do you want to predict every outcome of every encounter? May the best man/corp win like everything else in eve.
Also the missionrunner still has the choice to shoot or not.Everyone can get what they want,only downside is for the salvager who's risk increases a bit because he might" get attacked.The missionrunners risk then increases too because the salvager might have a fleet waiting.
|
HeIIfire11
|
Posted - 2011.04.24 10:39:00 -
[46]
Edited by: HeIIfire11 on 24/04/2011 10:42:35 Edited by: HeIIfire11 on 24/04/2011 10:40:03
Originally by: Halcyon Ingenium stuff
I've addressed almost everything you said in this thread already.Dont jump to the last page and get all in my koolaid because you're to lazy to read it.Sorry there is no TL;DR version.
Originally by: Mag's
Originally by: Avon ...snip... the overall effect would be a new flood of tears from the majority.
This and it would be wonderful.
Yes we heard you the first time.Vote for my fix and you might get it.Your flood of tears that is.
You should be on my side then wtf?Or do you just want to sound hard?
|
HeIIfire11
|
Posted - 2011.04.24 10:47:00 -
[47]
Originally by: Mag's
Originally by: HeIIfire11
Originally by: Mag's
Originally by: Avon ...snip... the overall effect would be a new flood of tears from the majority.
This and it would be wonderful.
Yes we heard you the first time.Vote for my fix and you might get it.
Did I say how wonderful it would be?
Yes!! See my edit above
|
HeIIfire11
|
Posted - 2011.04.24 11:00:00 -
[48]
Originally by: Mag's
Originally by: HeIIfire11
Originally by: Mag's
Did I say how wonderful it would be?
Yes!! See my edit above
IIRC I voted yes to aggression flagging, in the Assembly Hall.
There wasn't one open but there is now
|
HeIIfire11
|
Posted - 2011.04.24 11:17:00 -
[49]
Originally by: Keylah
Dayum! this thread was at 2 or 3 pages last time I was in here. Anyways, if salvage was flag able, a lot of mission runners would loose their shiny ships and go emo on this forum. In addition to that, a lot of them would rage quit eve. Some might thing that is a good thing, how ever I'm sure CCP won't be too happy about loosing that many subscriptions.
Not really,don't forget the missionrunner still has to shoot first.
Originally by: Keylah So some people would get their Eve paradise free of hi-sec mission runners, but that won't increase populations in low sec or null sec.
In null and low you can just shoot them.There is no concord hence no problem.
Originally by: Keylah Most of the carebears care nothing for pvp, CCP has been trying with little or no success to get them out of hi-sec for years. I don't see that changing anytime soon..
Maybe they will feel better about it in the safety of their own nest.
|
HeIIfire11
|
Posted - 2011.04.24 11:21:00 -
[50]
Edited by: HeIIfire11 on 24/04/2011 11:22:23
Originally by: DJWiggles Here is my two pence on the issue:
You either salvage first or you don't, if someone else gets there first then they get it. Woot for them if they get it and woot for you if you do. IMHO if you don't like the fact that someone else can come in to your mission (with a fair bit of work on their part) and try and get some salvage, then you have a few options:
- Get a salvage alt trained up and fly them behind you
- Train yourself up to fly a Marauder class Battleship
- Move to a less populated Mission Hub (upcoming changes will help this Agent quality etc.)
- Realise that CCP make this game and if you think its bad go make a game yourself and have it that you cant "steal" salvage
- Stop playing Eve-Online and forget about it
Tippia you can have many many cookies from me as I do love the way you !!!!reply with valid points !!!!!!and then people try to take you down.
I'd respond negative to your post for being a Tippia lover but since your character is so cute I'll let you off the hook this time.
|
|
HeIIfire11
|
Posted - 2011.04.24 11:31:00 -
[51]
Originally by: Maorio what's stopping you from ninja salvaging other peoples wrecks?
Who me? I don't care for salvage mine or anyone elses.I'm just trying to spice up mission running.That and stating the fact that the current game design causes confusion and offers a risk free ticket to isk.
|
HeIIfire11
|
Posted - 2011.04.24 12:05:00 -
[52]
Originally by: Halcyon Ingenium
Originally by: HeIIfire11 I've addressed almost everything you said in this thread already.Dont jump to the last page and get all in my koolaid because you're to lazy to read it.Sorry there is no TL;DR version.
You addressed nothing, you provided lame insults and tautologies. It has nothing to do with laziness, no one wants to read crap churned out by an inferior mind.
Wrong,I addressed everything like I said before and I don't believe you read more than the first page.The first page in which I did get a bit annoyed by Tippia because he always wants to know everything better evreywhere he posts.
As far as no one wanting to read it wrong again..3,075 people wanted to read it.Cut that in half because of all the frequent posters and its still a lot for one night.So it seems that the topic does interest people.
Originally by: Halcyon Ingenium no one wants to read crap churned out by an inferior mind.
Then stop posting.Saves you the time trying to google up all those big words
|
HeIIfire11
|
Posted - 2011.04.24 12:11:00 -
[53]
Originally by: Halcyon Ingenium
Originally by: HeIIfire11 As far as no one wanting to read it wrong again..3,075 people wanted to read it.Cut that in half because of all the frequent posters and its still a lot for one night.So it seems that the topic does interest people.
3,075 people read the thread. Idiot.
Who's insulting now? You mad bro? You forgot the rest though....here,I'll fix it for you.
Originally by: HeIIfire11 Cut that in half because of all the frequent posters and its still a lot for one night.
|
HeIIfire11
|
Posted - 2011.04.24 12:18:00 -
[54]
Originally by: Tippia
Originally by: HeIIfire11 Wrong,I addressed everything like I said before and I don't believe you read more than the first page.The first page in which
àyou didn't say anything about salvaging and just blathered on about bad game design. You also didn't in any way address the point HI made.
For the fith time..reread the thread.And it is bad game design.
Originally by: Tippia You also didn't in any way address the point HI made.
Who is HI?
Originally by: Tippia anything about salvaging.
Really?I must have been talking about sunshine and lollipops then..my bad.
|
HeIIfire11
|
Posted - 2011.04.24 12:25:00 -
[55]
Originally by: Mikel Laurentson Stick a sensor booster on a noctis, and troll the gankers in Jita. 2km/sec tractor beams hauling out 80km = hilarity.
Yes this would be pretty funny but you cant tractor beam anyone elses wreck because its theirs..which Tippia says it isn't.Thats the point I'm trying to make.
And you couldn't have killed 3 salvagers because the oracle (tippia) says the salvager would always win if attacked.
|
HeIIfire11
|
Posted - 2011.04.24 12:32:00 -
[56]
Originally by: Halcyon Ingenium
About your stupidity? No. I am never mad that others are inferior. The only thing that bothered me in this whole thread is when you lied about being a PhD and a professor. My friends who do have such positions would never stoop to being insolent and are literally incapable of showing the level of wanton stupidity you have shown. But the nine and possibly more pages of you proving yourself to be a liar have made it better.
Lol you go with your bad self
Only one problem..I know reading is hard but if you sound it out and try again you will find that I said no such thing.That was Amarraz.
Again..read the flippin thread before trying to look smart.Here I'll quote it for you.
Originally by: Amarraz I have a Ph.D. and am a professor, so I'm not especially dumb.
|
HeIIfire11
|
Posted - 2011.04.24 12:36:00 -
[57]
Originally by: Tippia Edited by: Tippia on 24/04/2011 12:22:45
Originally by: HeIIfire11 For the fith time..reread the thread.
Yes, please do. You'll quickly notice that, contrary to what you claimed, you didn't address any of HI's points on page 1. Quote:
Reread my post again I didn't say I addressed his issues on page one.I said I addressed them in this thread.
The rest is troll food and you can keep it.Its all been said.And the whole topic is about ninja salvaging so don't start being stupider than you look.
|
HeIIfire11
|
Posted - 2011.04.24 12:38:00 -
[58]
Originally by: Halcyon Ingenium
Originally by: HeIIfire11
Originally by: Halcyon Ingenium
About your stupidity? No. I am never mad that others are inferior. The only thing that bothered me in this whole thread is when you lied about being a PhD and a professor. My friends who do have such positions would never stoop to being insolent and are literally incapable of showing the level of wanton stupidity you have shown. But the nine and possibly more pages of you proving yourself to be a liar have made it better.
Lol you go with your bad self
Only one problem..I know reading is hard but if you sound it out and try again you will find that I said no such thing.That was Amarraz.
Again..read the flippin thread before trying to look smart.Here I'll quote it for you.
Originally by: Amarraz I have a Ph.D. and am a professor, so I'm not especially dumb.
Corrected it minutes before you posted. So yawn.
Too bad that I was faster and quoted it.So keep yawning
|
HeIIfire11
|
Posted - 2011.04.24 15:38:00 -
[59]
Originally by: Tippia Your points in the thread up to that point:.
One last time I will address all your arguments.
- Empty wrecks should turn blue.
This was not my suggestion but I did agree that it would be one way to solve the confusion.
- You should be able to scan wrecks.
Yes you should since CCP said it's a mini profession where people can roam and salvage wrecks.The salvagers are not roaming but scanning down mission runners to grief them,since according to you and a few others salvage is worth as good as nothing,this must be the goal.Griefing mission runners.
- Ninjas are griefers.
See above.
- Shoot the wrecks to counter-grief.
Smacktalk and a work-around to counter bad game design.
- EVE is a sandbox, not a PvP game.
Again if you're going to quote me,quote me correctly.I didn't say it wasn't a PVP game.I said it was a sandbox which does not limit it to PVP.There's more to eve than just PVP,combat or non combat PVP.
- CCP's stated reward structures are not the actual reward structures.
Stated reward structures are poorly balanced,which is my opinion.
- Technical limitations are design flaws.
Technical limitations which you cant prove exist,until then they remain design flaws in my opinion.
- Salvaging is risk-free.
Salvaging is risk free because the salvager is protected by concord if I choose to try and stop him.
- You can't roam for salvage.
I didn't say that,I said that I don't see scanning down mission runners as roaming for salvage.The intended goal is not the "worthless" salvage but to annoy the mission runner in most cases.
- Mission-running is risky.
More risky than sitting outside a station in a cheap ship and scanning down mission runners to salvage wrecks under the protection of concord.Even should the salvager lose his ship,the costs are minimal compared to what a mission runner risks when he goes into a lvl 4 mission.
- Ninjas should be flagged.
Again my opinion yes.This would split the risk between the two parties even though the cost of whats at stake is far greater for the mission runner.
- Mission rewards do not cover the risk of ship loss.
They don't.Depending on how much time you have what you earn in a week is not enough to replace a ca. 700 million isk t2 battleship.The salvager on the other hand can replace his ship with one mission that he salvaged.
- Salvaging is really risky for mission runners, but not for salvagers.
This you'll have to show me.I said its risk free for the salvager yes,but I never said it was risky for the mission runner.
- L4s pay too little.
In my opinion yes they do.Not every one has all day to run missions.Missions have been nerfed so that you get the crappy ones more often.If I have three or four hours in the day after work(and thats a lot)I can come out with less than 5o million on some days.
- Missions are boring.
They are in my opinion.
- Riskier activities pay more.
Don't they?
- Flagging ninjas would create combat opportunities.
It would.Opportunities that a mission runner wouldn't be forced to take,but opportunities none the less.
- Ninjas are easy to kill.
Depending on the ship and the distance they warp in at yes they can be one shot killed if the mission runner has his skills sorted and his ship fit right.
- Dev statements on salvaging are not relevant in a salvaging discussion.
They 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.If the wreck is no ones then anyone should be able to shoot the empty wreck.The salvager cant,nor can he tractor beam "my" wreck.Empty or not. Continued below...
|
HeIIfire11
|
Posted - 2011.04.24 15:42:00 -
[60]
Continued...
This is where you lost me.You say the following are points of his (HI) which were somehow addressed,yet below that you say they were not.I'll sum it up anyway.
Originally by: Tippia HI's points that were somehow addressed by all of that:
- Ninja salvaging isn't effortless.
I agree to a cirtain degree.It is a lot effortless than aquiring a 700 million isk mission ship,standing to access lvl 4 missions,looking the mission up online and last but not least,getting the mission done which produces the wrecks in the first place. The salvager can start a new character and in a week or two have all he needs to go salvage it.Compare that to the above and it is effortless yes.
- Fun is subjective.
I agree.
- Players don't create wrecks.
No player..no wreck.Its black and white and simple as that.
- Players can defend wrecks.
How? By shooting them? Thats not defending them,thats destroying them so no one gets them.No we can't defend them.
- CCP's game ù CCP's rules.
I agree.Doesn't mean I have to like them.This forum is to discuss eve and thats what I am doing.
Originally by: Tippia However, I do see quite a few of those tautologies and insults HI mentioned, in addition to pure inaccuracies, contradictions and ignorance of basic game mechanics.
I agree on the tautologies and insults but disagree on the inaccuracies, contradictions and ignorance of basic game mechanics.Those are your opinion because until you develope the game or work for ccp you have no more facts than I do.Just opinions which you try to beat into peoples head by repeating them over and over in ten different ways.Just like you do in every other thread in which you post.Sometimes you're right,but others you're wrong.But never...do you admit to being wrong or seeing another point of view.If Im lieing find a post and quote it. The tautologies and insults are for those who post without thinking or are limited to their one sided point of view or those who fail to troll properly.
|
|
HeIIfire11
|
Posted - 2011.04.24 15:46:00 -
[61]
Originally by: Leeluvv Posting in another 'I don't agree with CCP's stated game mechanics thread'.
I want to fit Artillery ammo into my Pulse lasers and I'm sure I could make lots of opinionated comments on why I believe it should be allowed; however, it is my opinion and conflicts with CCP's stated game mechanics, so anything I post is a waste of my time and a waste of everyone else's time reading or replying.
Yet you read it and you did reply.Or maybe you didn't read it..I'm not sure which makes you look worse.
|
HeIIfire11
|
Posted - 2011.04.24 21:16:00 -
[62]
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 -
[63]
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.
|
HeIIfire11
|
Posted - 2011.04.25 10:59:00 -
[64]
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 -
[65]
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 -
[66]
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.
|
HeIIfire11
|
Posted - 2011.04.25 11:29:00 -
[67]
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.
|
HeIIfire11
|
Posted - 2011.04.25 11:35:00 -
[68]
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.
|
HeIIfire11
|
Posted - 2011.04.25 13:06:00 -
[69]
Edited by: HeIIfire11 on 25/04/2011 13:06:44 Edited by: HeIIfire11 on 25/04/2011 13:06:26
Originally by: Uncle Alf Edited by: Uncle Alf on 25/04/2011 12:27:34
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.
**** Off back to wow you whiney little *****, your opinion never was worth reading you stupid bastard.
U mad bro?
If so...good! Troll on.
Troll tears = best tears.
|
HeIIfire11
|
Posted - 2011.04.25 13:45:00 -
[70]
Edited by: HeIIfire11 on 25/04/2011 13:46:29
Originally by: Shawnm339 it is the way it is and tbh it works perfect stop yer whining....some people make a living off others peoples trash its the way of the world
Sure is the way of the world but then the wreck should be labled as such..not yellow to others with my corp name on it.
And no one would care if you tractor beam trash would they? Go ahead and try then tell me what you got.
Tippia should go try this as well and since he's so good at quoting things maybe he can share with us what message the game gives him lol.
|
|
HeIIfire11
|
Posted - 2011.04.25 14:35:00 -
[71]
Edited by: HeIIfire11 on 25/04/2011 14:38:35
Originally by: Tippia
Originally by: HeIIfire11 And no one would care if you tractor beam trash would they? Go ahead and try then tell me what you got.
Tippia should go try this as well
I have already answered this.
Yet you didn't quote where. Fear not..I will help you since you seem to have fallen on your mouth.
"The small tractor beam cannot engage a tractor beam on that object as it is not owned by you,a fellow fleet member or anothermember of a player corp you belong to".
Means that the wreck belongs to the killer and his corp.Or it doesn't and its just unfinished content/bad game design which causes confusion like I have already said.
But go ahead and keep denying it..you're good at it. Hell you can sell someone a tree in the middle of the woods I'll give you that. But you don't convince me,only your weak minded fanclub will fall for your troll attempt.
|
HeIIfire11
|
Posted - 2011.04.25 14:40:00 -
[72]
Edited by: HeIIfire11 on 25/04/2011 14:43:53
Originally by: Tippia Edited by: Tippia on 25/04/2011 14:38:41
Originally by: HeIIfire11 "The small tractor beam cannot engage a tractor beam on that object as it is not owned by you,a fellow fleet member or anothermember of a player corp you belong to".
Yes, because you're trying to tractor an object (a loot can) that doesn't belong to you.
So the question remains: 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?
No,it was an empty wreck. If there is a make pretend can in there or not is up to everyone to decide for themselves.
|
HeIIfire11
|
Posted - 2011.04.25 14:45:00 -
[73]
Originally by: Tippia
Originally by: HeIIfire11 No,it was an empty wreck.
àwhich still contains a can that doesn't belong to you.
So the question remains: 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?
Either turn the wreck blue when looted or flag the salvager like I said one hundred times in this thread already.
|
HeIIfire11
|
Posted - 2011.04.25 14:54:00 -
[74]
Edited by: HeIIfire11 on 25/04/2011 14:55:25
Originally by: Tippia
Originally by: HeIIfire11 Either turn the wreck blue
That works for empty wrecks. How do you handle it with non-empty ones?
I don't even know why I continue arguing with you but here it goes. There is already a mechanic that turnes an empty wreck dark and empty. Can't be too hard to turn it blue when looted and change the status. Unlooted wreck remains the same.
Originally by: Tippia
Originally by: HeIIfire11 flag the salvager like I said one hundred times in this thread already.
Why should mission-runners have their income increased and have stuff given to them without any additional effort?
0/10 Been there...done that
|
HeIIfire11
|
Posted - 2011.04.25 15:05:00 -
[75]
Originally by: Tippia
Originally by: HeIIfire11 Unlooted wreck remains the same.
àand you don't think that the (supposed) confusion will remain exactly the same then, or even increase? After all, the wreck still has a name on it, even though it's free for all. It will just keep the same confusion we have now and add the confused notion that while there's loot left, the wreck is theirs and that anyone salvaging it is "stealing".
So that doesn't really solve the confusion because the source of the confusion remains.
Change the name or make yellow wrecks so that you cant salvage them unless you belong to the corp. That would justify the statement that its garbage. Garbage to me is stuff people trow away. Not stuff I plan to use but havn't gotten to it yet.
In any case I'm not a dev and don't know the code anymore than you do. Let them figure it out.
Originally by: Tippia
Originally by: HeIIfire11 Been there...done that
You never answered it, though. So why should mission-runners have their income increased and have stuff given to them without any additional effort?
Why not?
|
HeIIfire11
|
Posted - 2011.04.25 15:14:00 -
[76]
Edited by: HeIIfire11 on 25/04/2011 15:14:30
Originally by: Tippia
Originally by: HeIIfire11 Why not?
àis not a reason why and is trivially dismissed by "Because there's no reason for it."
Why do they do anything in eve? Mission running isn't the cream of the crop. It's boring and time consuming and it isn't by far the best way to earn is in eve so why not let them earn the extra 5-10 million extra change? It wont make or break anything.Thats not the topic of this thread anyway nor is it that much isk to even use as a point in this discussion.
Question remains..why not?
|
HeIIfire11
|
Posted - 2011.04.25 15:25:00 -
[77]
Originally by: Tippia
Originally by: HeIIfire11 Question remains..why not?
Because there's no reason for it.
It's a game there's no reason for a lot of things.
This is what I mean..you're full of **** and I really have better things to do than to entertain some Arrogant, egotistical and delusional know it all on some forum. Sorry if you're offended but this is my opinion. Either that or you're a troll in which case for this session I'll give you a 1/10.
I will no longer discuss this with you because you know it all better anyways no matter what evidence is brought to the table. I'll give you a tip though. CCP is known for sloppy unfinished content and it's ok because it's not an easy game to stay on top of.For that I give them credit.
But to defend their mistakes no matter what just makes you look stupid.
|
HeIIfire11
|
Posted - 2011.04.25 15:46:00 -
[78]
Originally by: Tippia
Originally by: HeIIfire11 It's a game there's no reason for a lot of things.
Maybe. But you're the one who wants to see a change to the game, so you're the one who has to provide a reason for why it should change.
I never said I want to change a thing. It's perfectly clear that even if 10,000 people agreed with me on this matter it wouldn't change.
I was stating my opinion and presented evidence that what they intend salvaging to be and what it is are two different things.You choose not to accept anyof it and counter with questions having nothing to do with the matter at hand.
Like I said before,I can call you a lot of things but not stupid.Don't act it.
I can't change the game because I don't work for CCP,but what I can change is that the character called Tippia never sees the outside of a station again.And that with minimal effort.Don't tempt me.
|
HeIIfire11
|
Posted - 2011.04.25 15:50:00 -
[79]
Originally by: Dirael Papier
Originally by: Tippia So that doesn't really solve the confusion because the source of the confusion remains, as does the question: how do you handle non-empty wrecks to remove the confusion?
Always send out a jetcan for loot. So wrecks are always empty, if there's loot it'll be in a can by the wreck.
I have no idea if this would get rid of confusion for people though since wrecks would still need to be color-coded for tractor rights (Unless they changed tractor rights so that tractor rights for wrecks are affected the same for everyone regardless of who made the wreck, in which case wrecks could all be blue), but at least the labeling could be different.
I'm still pretty new though and have absolutely 0 experience ninja-salvaging, so I don't really know the extent to which this would muck things up for people.
New or not this is a really good idea to be honest.
|
HeIIfire11
|
Posted - 2011.04.25 15:55:00 -
[80]
Originally by: Mag's
Originally by: HeIIfire11 I can't change the game because I don't work for CCP,but what I can change is that the character called Tippia never sees the outside of a station again.And that with minimal effort.Don't tempt me.
I was actually enjoying the banter and found it quite funny at times. But that was really lame, still funny, but lame all the same.
Lame or not he gets on my nerves.You can't win with him and it's pointless to discuss anything with him. It's his way or none and I can't believe after all the fuss made over this topic that he can say there's nothing wrong.
|
|
HeIIfire11
|
Posted - 2011.04.25 16:06:00 -
[81]
Originally by: PuncherDavis Wow what a read.
Starting to wonder if Tippia and Hell are married cause man.. talk about going back and forth over a topic.
Here ill sum it up after many many pages.
Ccp thinks that the Tougher it is in eve the more it is in line with the harsh mentality they want to potray in the game. So in essence CCP likes to promote your the ability to be an ASS whenever you can be.
This being said CCP acts like an ASS at times even when they know that in concept and logic you the player may be correct. They feel they should act the same way toward the common body of players in order to maintain the order of the Eve universe. This being to promote PVP in any form possible thus keeping in line with a universe of chaos and control constantly at each other in all things.
Also all that being said I dont think they have figured out yet.. The more times you flash red in front of an angry bull. ( or players in this case) The more ****ed people get about the illogical game play or perceived wrongs that do take place. That and many broken things in Eve which are shiny at first but dull fast add even more to the frustration of your common eve player.
As far as this topic goes well. (1) If you have the capability loot as you go. EG: Second account that comes in while first has aggro and tractors cans in and loots as you go. (2) If you don't care about the loot then set it to all blue so anybody can have it. (3) Blow up the cans as the Ninja gets to them and watch the tears? (4) Believe it or not some Ninja folk do have a sense of honor. Make a deal and get them involved in a mission for a cut.
Overall I do not think CCP will ever change this as it goes hand in hand with the ( LETS give the player the ability to add chaos to the game) mentality.
I do missions as well but i choose areas that have low population and thus a lower chance of Ninja folks to show up and never have an issue. Perhaps you may want to try the same.
I'm not after the salvage as I leave it where it lands lol. I jumped into this because I agree with the op,it is flawed and causes confusion.
I agree with you that CP likes to cause chaos and I think flagging salvagers would do just that. It should be in their interest.
As far as being married to him..I would have thrown his ass out the window a long time ago
|
HeIIfire11
|
Posted - 2011.04.25 16:09:00 -
[82]
Edited by: HeIIfire11 on 25/04/2011 16:09:41
Originally by: Mag's He may get on your nerves, but he's logical and correct with all of his conclusions.
logical and correct with some of his conclusions.
He's not dumb by far and I keep trying to figure out if he's just hard headed as a bull or a troll. Still not sure to be honest.
|
HeIIfire11
|
Posted - 2011.04.25 16:16:00 -
[83]
Originally by: Tippia I'm dragging you, kicking and screaming, along the process of creating a fully featured, presentable suggestion for the betterment of the game. It requires a lot of thought and is a tough process, but in the end, it actually generates results. This is a good thing.
You're dragging me kicking and screaming until I say the all mighty ccp is perfect and until I turn into a fanboy like you. NO thanks you do that job very well. News flash!! Eve is far from perfect and this is one of those things that cause that.
|
HeIIfire11
|
Posted - 2011.04.25 16:20:00 -
[84]
Originally by: Tippia
Originally by: HeIIfire11 News flash!! Eve is far from perfect and this is one of those things that cause that.
So let's figure out a good way of fixing that thenà
This is what I have been trying from the start and have since then proposed a number of fixes all of which you have declined.
I am also open to any discussion having to do with this,not that it matters but it's not like I've been saying it's my way or no way.
|
HeIIfire11
|
Posted - 2011.04.25 16:26:00 -
[85]
Edited by: HeIIfire11 on 25/04/2011 16:27:00
Originally by: Tippia
Originally by: HeIIfire11 This is what I have been trying from the start and have since then proposed a number of fixes all of which you have declined.
àbecause you haven't considered the consequences and/or argued why they are good. You are also arguing for two diametrically opposed things at once.
Yes because of the "lvl 4 mission buff" if you can even call it that because I think everyone agrees that salvage is worth as good as nothing now a days. So this shouldn't be the thing to put a halt to the discussion of this topic.
I know of two missions or so where the salvage is worth it and earns you like 10 million if you're lucky and get the right parts.Other than that is more like 5 million and in most cases even less to none.So where is the huge buff?
|
HeIIfire11
|
Posted - 2011.04.25 16:30:00 -
[86]
Edited by: HeIIfire11 on 25/04/2011 16:31:05
Originally by: Ingvar Angst
Originally by: HeIIfire11
Originally by: Tippia
Originally by: HeIIfire11 News flash!! Eve is far from perfect and this is one of those things that cause that.
So let's figure out a good way of fixing that thenà
This is what I have been trying from the start and have since then proposed a number of fixes all of which you have declined.
I am also open to any discussion having to do with this,not that it matters but it's not like I've been saying it's my way or no way.
You ever think that Eve isn't "perfect" by design? Or perhaps, in the eyes of many, this is a "perfect" system already that opens up the opportunity for a certain niche of players to utilize to generate extra isk in their own way? There are those that ninja salvage for isk, there are those that do it for a chance at PvP. Both are fully valid aspects of the game. There's no need to remove these aspects of play because you find it unsettling.
And just what would flagging the salvager change? The mission runner would still have the choice to shoot or not. And the salvager would still have the choice to salvage a mission or a ded space complex where it wont get him aggro.
Game remains the same with new found opportunity to pvp for those salvagers who want it.
Edit: Okay the very minor mission buff would change too but there are other ways to balance that out if it's such a big deal.
|
HeIIfire11
|
Posted - 2011.04.25 17:25:00 -
[87]
Originally by: Tippia Edited by: Tippia on 25/04/2011 16:42:00
Originally by: HeIIfire11 everyone agrees that salvage is worth as good as nothing now a days. So this shouldn't be the thing to put a halt to the discussion of this topic.
Maybe, but it still represents an increase in mission rewards. Why is that needed? It also completely gut-shots an entire (mini)profession. Why is that needed (or, indeed, even remotely a good thing)?
It isn't needed but nor does it gut-shot an entire profession. The mission runner would still be faced with the problem if he should shoot or not. There's no way of telling if that salvager has an alt or fleet waiting for just that.
It would however give those who want to risk it a shot.
Originally by: Tippia Also, claiming that salvage isn't worth much raises the question of, if it isn't, why are mission-runners so adamant that it absolutely must be theirs?
I don't know. Maybe because they belong to the "lvl 4 earns too little" crowd. I am not one of those mission runners. I belong to the bunch that doesn't like the grief attempt and would like to blast the salvager and take my chances.
Originally by: Tippia
Originally by: HeIIfire11 where is the huge buff?
It doesn't have to be all that huge, but it's there none the less. Moreover, it goes against the pattern of what you consider a series of (effectively) nerfs ù does it really make sense to counter-act those (and sacrificing a completely different profession in the process)?
This belongs to that other topic as far as agreeing with lvl 4 being nerfed.We would have to solve that first in order for me to give you that answer. And you wouldn't be sacrificing another profession because like i said the risk of being setup wouldn't change. So the salvagers would be able to continue salvaging with a slightly higher risk. As it stands now the salvager has as good as no risk. The only risk he has is getting aggro if the missioner warps out. That isn't much because in a destroyer you can be out in a few seconds. And even if he loses the ship it costs nothing and is worth no more than one mission salvaged.
|
HeIIfire11
|
Posted - 2011.04.25 22:36:00 -
[88]
Originally by: ShahFluffers Edited by: ShahFluffers on 25/04/2011 22:22:31
Tippa... I need to buy you a drink. Seriously. For this thread you deserve one.
Really? You had to edit one sentence? Looks like you've had one too many already
How about answering to what I wrote about your last post.
|
HeIIfire11
|
Posted - 2011.04.25 22:39:00 -
[89]
Originally by: Khanya Trace lets meet in the middle! Wrecks have ownership, but only player ownership and not corporation ownership.
So the missioner and the salvager can fight for the right of salvaging as demanded in this thread. And then, for consistency purpose as demanded, loot in wrecks are not corp ownership either.
I would have no problem with this at all. Now get CCP to do it and you're my hero.
|
HeIIfire11
|
Posted - 2011.04.27 04:23:00 -
[90]
Edited by: HeIIfire11 on 27/04/2011 04:26:25
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.
As far as the wreck ownership goes I believe this says it all. This was the blog on the original change. I don't think the gm just threw it out there for his health. This is what it was intended to be.
If at some later point they decided to change this they should have changed the game design to reflect this choice. Then we wouldn't be having this argument.
The wreck at the time of the change belonged to the mission runner.If that changed at some point the game mechanic should have changed with it. If nothing else,this is at least very poor game design on their side to just leave it like that.
|
|
HeIIfire11
|
Posted - 2011.04.27 04:30:00 -
[91]
Originally by: Awesome Possum
Wrecks themselves belong to NO ONE.
Wrong it belongs to the mission runner. I think its safe to believe that a GM knows it better than you.
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.
|
HeIIfire11
|
Posted - 2011.04.27 04:38:00 -
[92]
Originally by: Awesome Possum
Originally by: HeIIfire11
Originally by: Awesome Possum
Wrecks themselves belong to NO ONE.
Wrong it belongs to the mission runner. I think its safe to believe that a GM knows it better than you.
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.
And you're an idiot talking about loot, we're talking about salvage. The wrecks can only be tractored by the mission runner too, all that means is the GMs have given the MR a leg up over ninjas when it comes to salvaging and MRs still want more coddling.
The wreck belongs to no one, anyone can salvage it free from aggression. CCP said so, get over it because we all know you won't do jack **** if its ever changed.
No,you're and idiot putting words in my mouth. I said nothing about loot nor did the gm in that quote.
And if I won't do nothing I hope you are the first to come and try if it changes bad ass.
|
HeIIfire11
|
Posted - 2011.04.27 04:47:00 -
[93]
Either way there's a contradiction there which causes this confusion.
If they want it like this then they should turn the wreck blue when looted and let the salvager tractor beam it and shoot it as well.
Unfair both ways to be honest hence why I say it's bad game mechanics.
If I was on the side of the salvager I'd be complaining about why I cant tractor beam it if it belongs to "nobody".
|
HeIIfire11
|
Posted - 2011.04.27 04:54:00 -
[94]
Originally by: Tippia
Originally by: HeIIfire11 If they want it like this then they should turn the wreck blue when looted and let the salvager tractor beam it and shoot it as well.
àwhich still leaves the question of how to handle non-empty wrecks.
leave them yellow. Like one of those CCP quotes says..it's floating garbage. Gargage is something you no longer want and throw away.
Yellow wrecks cant be salvaged. Put a timer on them or whatever. This wouldn't be what I would want but a solution none the less.
|
HeIIfire11
|
Posted - 2011.04.27 05:00:00 -
[95]
Edited by: HeIIfire11 on 27/04/2011 05:00:25
Originally by: Tippia
Originally by: HeIIfire11 leave them yellow.
But then the confusion remains the same as it is now. Unlessà Quote: Yellow wrecks cant be salvaged.
àbut then you buff mission rewards, which won't happen because that's not the purpose of wrecks.
For the sake of argument lets say we want to avoid buffing missions at all costs,which I think is dumb but thats my opinion,simply reduce the bounty on the rats to balance it out.
Or the pay and lp. Theres other ways to do balance it. Its not that big of a buff.
|
HeIIfire11
|
Posted - 2011.04.27 05:07:00 -
[96]
Originally by: Awesome Possum
Originally by: HeIIfire11 Edited by: HeIIfire11 on 27/04/2011 05:00:25
Originally by: Tippia
Originally by: HeIIfire11 leave them yellow.
But then the confusion remains the same as it is now. Unlessà Quote: Yellow wrecks cant be salvaged.
àbut then you buff mission rewards, which won't happen because that's not the purpose of wrecks.
For the sake of argument lets say we want to avoid buffing missions at all costs,which I think is dumb but thats my opinion,simply reduce the bounty on the rats to balance it out.
Or the pay and lp. Theres other ways to do balance it. Its not that big of a buff.
or... just leave it the way it is, because it works fine.
It doesn't work fine..even for the salvager. Why shouldn't he be able to tractor beam an empty wreck that belongs to no one?
|
HeIIfire11
|
Posted - 2011.04.27 05:14:00 -
[97]
Originally by: Tippia
Originally by: HeIIfire11 For the sake of argument lets say we want to avoid buffing missions at all costs,which I think is dumb but thats my opinion,simply reduce the bounty on the rats to balance it out.
Or, why not leave salvage alone since there's nothing wrong with the salvaging profession¦, and simply add back some loot and/or increase the bounties or LP if mission-runners (for no good reason) feel they're falling behind the income curveà
Why is it so hard to accept the fact that wrecks were introduced for salvagers, not for mission-runners?
Quote: Or the pay and lp. Theres other ways to do balance it.
Reducing the LP is probably the last thing you'd want to do since it's a decent and functional ISK sink ù if anything, a larger part of the rewards should be shifted towards LP (regardless of any other changes).
¦ àor, if you absolutely want to go on about the "design flaws", fix those flaws so that the salvaging profession actually works in its entirety: mark wrecks properly (somehow) so it's clear the wrecks are free for all; auto-blue empty wrecks; invent a way to scan down wrecks. But realise that everything that fixes those supposed design flaws will be buffs to the free-roaming salvagers.
It was never about the mission pay for me as I don't salvage anyway. The point the op was making is that its bad game design that also causes confusion. That much I think should be clear. And I have nothing against salvagers..yes,fix it (somehow)and let them do their thing.
If it was up to me I would say flag them but it's not. Either way it's unfinished content and bad game design which was my point from the start.
|
HeIIfire11
|
Posted - 2011.04.27 05:17:00 -
[98]
Originally by: Xzar Fyrarr
Ohshtz. What is this???
Look it's a ninja...kill it quick!!!!
|
HeIIfire11
|
Posted - 2011.04.27 05:20:00 -
[99]
Originally by: Kara Sharalien
Originally by: Skex Relbore
You continue to ignore the fact that salvage can only exist as a result of a player destroying a ship.
Well that's nonsense. You've clearly never been to a magnetometric site. Who owns the stuff in the mag sites?
Good question,I've never been in one. What color is the wreck?
I would tip on white.
|
HeIIfire11
|
Posted - 2011.04.27 05:25:00 -
[100]
Originally by: Xzar Fyrarr
Originally by: HeIIfire11
Originally by: Xzar Fyrarr
Ohshtz. What is this???
Look it's a ninja...kill it quick!!!!
Wheres the ninja!?
Running with his tail between his legs because he got flagged for stealing my stuffz if I had it my way
|
|
HeIIfire11
|
Posted - 2011.04.27 05:29:00 -
[101]
Edited by: HeIIfire11 on 27/04/2011 05:30:50
Originally by: Awesome Possum
Originally by: HeIIfire11
Originally by: Awesome Possum
or... just leave it the way it is, because it works fine.
It doesn't work fine..even for the salvager. Why shouldn't he be able to tractor beam an empty wreck that belongs to no one?
Because CCP said so, I thought we already covered this?
Who are you and when did you pop in again?
We didn't cover anything.Read the thread how about that. CCP says a lot when the day is long but if the game mechanic alows you to do otherwise its bad game design which was somewhat the point of the op.
So start on page one and try reading the op at least.
Edit:I don't have images enabled but I'm sure I didn't miss much
|
HeIIfire11
|
Posted - 2011.04.27 05:35:00 -
[102]
Originally by: Tippia
Originally by: HeIIfire11 Running with his tail between his legs because he got flagged for stealing my stuffz if I had it my way
You haven't come across TEARS I take it?
I've come accros two ninjas in my time. One was while I was with a corp doing missions..he lived.
Another was in my mission and I called a corp mate who warped in with a tempest and broke his neck with one shot.
|
HeIIfire11
|
Posted - 2011.04.27 05:41:00 -
[103]
Edited by: HeIIfire11 on 27/04/2011 05:42:48
Originally by: Awesome Possum
Except for the part where the game mechanic does NOT allow you to do otherwise.
CCP says the wreck belongs to no one but yet you cant tractor beam it. If you shoot same wreck you get concorded. This looks to me as if what ccp says and what you can do are two different things.
Edit: I meant tractor beam it...
|
HeIIfire11
|
Posted - 2011.04.27 10:33:00 -
[104]
Originally by: Destination SkillQueue Why add any kind of timer to it? Currently salvaging is free for all, is working just fine and is perfectly in line with the intended design.
Tippia is this your alt? No it's not in line with anything. If it was the salvager would be able to tractor beam it like I said. And it's not working just fine because no other profession in eve is protected by concord making it risk free.
Originally by: Destination SkillQueue You are just basicly proposing a nerf to salvaging and a boost to mission running for no apparent reason other than your own feelings of entitlement. If you want to to boost the rewards for missioning, please provide good reasoning for it, instead of just relying on your personal feelings to justify it.
No one is talking about buffing missions and should this be such an undesired side effect to the fix, as mentioned before there are other ways to balance that out.
Originally by: Destination SkillQueue I'd also like to point out two things. If you want to include salvaging to mission rewards by the way of denying it for anyone else by the way of game mechanics, other mission rewards will likely be nerfed to keep the guaranteed rewards for missioning at the current level. It's also very un-EVE like, so it has almost 0 chance of ever happening.
Again..a risk free profession is not very eve like either
Originally by: Destination SkillQueue All that is going to change is that you can shoot them and if yoyou will get killed in your expensive missioning ship soon afteru do, and make a I quit ragepost about it on the forums. Getting aggression flagged never stops people from doing those deeds, it more often than not just gets the people who react with strong emotions to the act killed.
Another fortune teller Why don't you give me the lottery numbers for next week? There are endless ways such a situation could turn out. Being a ninja salvager does not by far mean you will automaticly win.
|
HeIIfire11
|
Posted - 2011.04.27 10:40:00 -
[105]
Edited by: HeIIfire11 on 27/04/2011 10:46:09
Originally by: Mag's
Originally by: HeIIfire11 Edited by: HeIIfire11 on 27/04/2011 05:42:48
Originally by: Awesome Possum
Except for the part where the game mechanic does NOT allow you to do otherwise.
CCP says the wreck belongs to no one but yet you cant tractor beam it. If you shoot same wreck you get concorded. This looks to me as if what ccp says and what you can do are two different things.
Edit: I meant tractor beam it...
Wasn't the reason for this already covered?
Mag's damnit! Weren't you supposed to be on my side?
Where was this covered and what exactly is it that you are talking about?
Oh you mean because theres a make pretend can inside of it? I wouldn't call that covered. I would call that role playing because I can see no can nor does the wreck say anything about one. If you salvage the wreck before I loot it then yes,a can spawns which you can even hear spawn. Not only that but when you salvage an empty wreck there's no sign of a can anywhere.
|
HeIIfire11
|
Posted - 2011.04.27 10:50:00 -
[106]
Edited by: HeIIfire11 on 27/04/2011 10:51:36
Originally by: Hana Steelethorne Of course, there are those ninja salvagers who specialize in baiting mission runners into firing on them only to come back with their mates and kill the missioners. No, when one has expended the effort and expense of running a mission,ALL the fruits of that labor belong to them. But CCP is more interested in fostering pointless and needless conflict between players, so this game mechanic will not change.
He can't come back with anything because as far as I know when he steals from my corp and I shoot him only he has aggro and the right to shoot back.
Not only that but my corp/fleet can shoot him too so the odds are against him really.
|
HeIIfire11
|
Posted - 2011.04.27 12:56:00 -
[107]
Originally by: Mr Kidd Ninja salvaging isn't risk free. Recon 3 is all that needs to be said. But, somehow insta-death probably isn't going to satisfy you. So how about the ninja when he's aggro'd by npc in the mission? Right that's not good enough for you either.
Recon 3 is one of a kind so good example there
Not only that but I can solo most lvl 4 missions in my daredevil. A frig is hardly in danger in a lvl 4 mission. He can easily warp out at any given time.
Originally by: Mr Kidd What you want is the ability to shoot the ninja "risk free". You want the ninja to be marked with aggression so that you don't get concordokkened. You want exactly what you perceive, wrongly, the ninja to have....a risk free existence while you get the excitement of shooting a ship with at most 1200ehp with your ship that's doling out +500dps and +50,000ehp with a defensive rating of +300hp/s.
No one is forcing you to do it in a frig either. But I'll teach you something for the future. If you would take a cruiser you would have a very good chance to kill the mission runner since they 90% of the time are tanking two ways which leaves a huge hole somewhere. So much for your 50k ehp. Take said cruiser and load em or exp drones in there and if you manage to get in orbit the mission runner is ****ed.
Originally by: Mr Kidd I'll tell you what.....you tell me when and where you typically mission. I'll come to your mission and ninja it in my old ninja ship, a Tristan. But, I won't just ninja salvage, I'll ninja loot it so you can have exactly what you're asking for. I won't even bring friends. It'll be just you and me. Hmm?
I mission in isinokka as any locator agent would be able to tell you. As far as when..add me to the buddy list and you know that too. If you manage to scan me out by all means try me. But be aware that I wont play fair as I dont see risking a billion isk ship against your 300k ship fair when I'm tanking a mission and that two ways. So don't be surprised when a corp mate/fleet member comes in and takes you out.
Good luck
|
HeIIfire11
|
Posted - 2011.04.27 13:35:00 -
[108]
Edited by: HeIIfire11 on 27/04/2011 13:37:02
Originally by: Aeronwen Carys I'm stunned at how few people seem to understand the concept of salvage not belonging to you just because you shot the ship. As far as I can see there are only a few changes that need to be made.
First up if a Salvager steals your loot, the only person who should be able to shoot him is you. No-one else need be involved.
Secondly there needs to be some clarification as to exactly how wrecks, cans and cans within wrecks actually work from a technical standpoint as there seems to be some understandable confusion over it.
Other than that its just mission runners whining and wanting a boost to their earnings and a nerf to another profession. Oh and as a side note to hellfire, high sec ninja salvaging is not the only concord protected profession at all.
If someone comes in to your belt and shoots at you then concord will kill them, if someone warps into your mission and shoots you, they get concorded and if someone blows up your cans they get concorded. Your assertion that salvaging is risk free due to lack of concord stems from the simple fact that you don't understand that salvage doesn't belong to you.
First of all cool looking avatar..me likes
Second,you have a few good points as far as concord goes I guess. It depends how you look at things and what belongs to you or doesn't.
But I never asked for a mission buff although most in these threads do.I was stating my opinion about this whole thing being bad game design and I'm sticking to it. I also stated my opinion on how I would fix it if it were up to me,which it isn't.
I also know this wont change anytime soon as I am still waiting on a blaster buff along with many other things that bug the hell out of me and others. Same reasons I hardly play anymore on this account much less my main.
I'm going to put down my sword on this subject because it's been fun but it's also been beaten to death and we obviously have a lot more salvagers than I thought. No one seems to see that this mini profession is bugged but skex who understands exactly what I'm talking about.
One thing became clear is that so many people hate mission runners and I can't understand why. Because they wont play with you lol? I run mission now but I'm not what you can call a "mission runner".I have had my share in pvp and used to use this character as a source of second income when I didn't feel like putting up with the crap going on elsewhere. And I could care less about the salvage really so I'm not out for the buff either. Anyone who knows me will tell you If you ask me I'll give that and the loot to you anyday.
Also anyone who says mission running is the cream of the crop needs to go out to 0.0 or even low sec and you will see that mission running is more work than it is pay. You have to grind twice as hard to get ahead and it takes time. The only thing it has to offer is that it's pretty low risk if you know what you're doing. But the risk is no greater in 0.0 where everything you see is blue and you can rat and mission or whatever in peace. And get paid way more for doing so. So I don't even blame the mission runners for wanting their salvage tbh.
Originally by: Mr Kidd We're on! ;)
Bring it fat face
|
HeIIfire11
|
Posted - 2011.04.27 14:10:00 -
[109]
Edited by: HeIIfire11 on 27/04/2011 14:14:05
Originally by: Doddy
Originally by: Amarraz Missions are not risk free. That's spoken from the perspective, I'm guessing, of someone who's played the game for well over a year. In fact, this game is quite brutal for beginners. I've lost more than a dozen ships in missions. You can blame this on a lack of skill, and perhaps that's the case, but asserting that missions carry no risk is simply untrue. Perhaps low risk, but risk nevertheless. And, in my estimation, time alone does not outweigh risk. If it takes a ninja salvager 30 minutes to locate my mission wrecks (it took him considerably less), does that really outweigh even a 2% chance that I will lose a 500 million ship? I don't think so, and that's been my point from the beginning: with ninja salvaging, there is absolutely zero risk. Now the designers of EVE can state all they want that this is an intentional feature of the game, and a function of non-instanced missions, but that doesn't make it good game design.
No one bad/new enough at this game to die regularly in missions should be flying a 500 mil ship in the first place. Also the ninja salvager is taking the risk that someone will be stupid and shoot at him, almost certainly more likely than dying to a mission in a 500 mil ship. Most mission runners don't even bother salvaging anyway as it drastically reduces income.
You also miss the point that salvaging was added to the game as a mini-proffession specifically to let people search for wrecks to salvage. It was not added just to give mission runners more free loot.
No it was added to conflict with the mission runners which it is doing a good job of. It ticks them off. If this wasn't the case it would be scanning wrecks down and not the players. Which would be a lot better because then they could salvage loads and clean up the server. Not only that but then they wouldn't be limited to scanning fast enough to catch the player.
But noI didn't want to argue anymore....must ....resist
Originally by: Skippermonkey
Originally by: Tippia
Originally by: Skippermonkey Went though an accel gate that was at a beacon, and saw a red container... that was new to me, had been looted though. Somebody tell me what that container was?
:CCP:
I love that bug.
SRSLY THOUGH
what was it?
Good question I've only seen this in ded space complexes and that maybe once or twice.
|
HeIIfire11
|
Posted - 2011.04.27 17:51:00 -
[110]
Originally by: Awesome Possum Probing and Salvaging are two different acts, lets stay on topic.
Topic is salvagers in peoples missions. Without probing there are no salvagers in other peoples missions. Probing is on topic.
Besides topic is dead..didn't you get the memo?
There's only so much you can say about something that wont change anyway.
I'm right ..you're wrong.
|
|
HeIIfire11
|
Posted - 2011.04.27 21:15:00 -
[111]
Originally by: Jayson Lee
Now technically CCP has made this a non-issue by claiming its working as intended, but things can change and I am on the side that thinks this is not what CCP had in mind and they simply dont want to put the effort into changing it.
This is my opinion exactly..well said.
|
HeIIfire11
|
Posted - 2011.04.28 15:43:00 -
[112]
Edited by: HeIIfire11 on 28/04/2011 15:47:09
Originally by: Jayson Lee What would be your ideal fix? Allow the theft to occure and let the mission runner have the chance to respond? Or just not allow anyone to loot the wrecks other than the owner?
I think something needs to be done to allow players the chance at this profession, and maybe CCP needs to add some more options. What if you can sell salvage rights to missions?
Allow players to sell the rights for a fee, and then people who want to can buy the contracts and the location?
Should wrecks be taken out of missions completely? Make them a scanable deadspace?
This is a really good question to be honest. I'm going to be fair to ccp. To flag salvagers in missions only sounds like a tricky fix. I would love that fix but I'm not sure if thats doable without re-doing the whole wreck system.
So the best thing I can think of at the moment is that when the wreck is looted it becomes free for all. But then there's still the question of what happens before the wreck is looted? Here is where it becomes more complicated because I think salvage in missions should belong to the mission runner which opens a whole new topic about what lvl 4 missions earn.
I also dont think a two week old noob in a T1 frigate should be earning 10-15 million per hour.It's hard to say just what the fix should be because I don't know ccp's technical limitations if there are any. This would be something I would have to give some more thought if I'm going to be completely fair to all including the salvagers and CCP.
Any ideas?
Edit: My flag the salvager idea would include wrecks being turned blue at least after the mission so that people could scan wrecks down and gather everything left behind. To do this you would have to be able to scan down wrecks. I don't care much for the griefer aspect of the whole thing..they have enough ways to grief people in eve if you ask me. So this would be mainly for new players who want to really salvage.
|
HeIIfire11
|
Posted - 2011.04.28 22:28:00 -
[113]
Edited by: HeIIfire11 on 28/04/2011 22:36:02
Originally by: Tippia
Quote: Im sorry but when you look at everything as a whole, the most simple and logical solution is that CCP intended for people to salvage their own wrecks.
àexcept that they've quite clearly stated that this is not the case.
And on the fourth day ccp said let ther be marauders... ccp saw people salvaging their wrecks and said this was good.
A tool used to mission and salvage at the same time. With this tool salvaging and missioning can be seen as the same profession.
Edit:You know..looking at all this one could think that missions are there to be griefed. It is perfectly clear that mission runners don't want these people in their stuff so all this "player interaction" in missions is there to entertain griefers. Show me one mission runner that says I want ninjas in my mission. A wise man names skex once said ccp is the biggest bunch of griefers and the more I think about it I think he's completely right.
|
HeIIfire11
|
Posted - 2011.04.29 13:16:00 -
[114]
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. And yes lvl 4 could use a buff seeing as to how in null sec you fly titans instead of shuttles. But yeah the lvl 4 mission runners are responible for the isk printing. Who ever thinks this needs to get a clue..really. God forbid the mission runner gets 5-10 mill more per mission.
And 10 million is only in one or two of the best missions which you hardly get. More like 5 million per mission.
|
HeIIfire11
|
Posted - 2011.04.29 17:24:00 -
[115]
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.
|
HeIIfire11
|
Posted - 2011.04.29 17:29:00 -
[116]
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.
|
HeIIfire11
|
Posted - 2011.04.29 17:51:00 -
[117]
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."
|
HeIIfire11
|
Posted - 2011.04.29 18:23:00 -
[118]
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.
|
HeIIfire11
|
Posted - 2011.04.29 18:49:00 -
[119]
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.
|
HeIIfire11
|
Posted - 2011.04.29 18:55:00 -
[120]
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.
|
|
HeIIfire11
|
Posted - 2011.04.29 19:04:00 -
[121]
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.
|
HeIIfire11
|
Posted - 2011.04.29 20:34:00 -
[122]
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.
|
HeIIfire11
|
Posted - 2011.04.29 21:28:00 -
[123]
Edited by: HeIIfire11 on 29/04/2011 21:33:14
Originally by: Tippia
Quote: And to clear things up I'm not after a mission buff
Funny that, seeing as how you're arguing for one.
No I'm not. Why would I argue to get something I already have? Nothing's stopping me from salvaging I just choose to leave it. Why should I care who it belongs to? No my point is just what I said it was..nothing more nothing less.
And about the can..you say there is one and ccp says there isn't. Which is it? Who is right you or ccp? Can only be one since the two statements contradict each other.
"In Kali all ships (player and NPC) will spawn wrecks upon destruction. This will replace the loot can."
|
HeIIfire11
|
Posted - 2011.04.29 22:59:00 -
[124]
Well since Tippia is in a state of denial I can rest my case. Without your make pretend can you have nothing else to bring to the table. Same can that ccp says was replaced by wrecks.
And this is where the argument goes in my favor. Because without the can (which ccp says no longer exists)there is no reason for a wreck to have my name on it.
This is also where my point is proven and the bad game design in this mini profession comes in..thus causing the confusion.
I'm sorry but as much as you love to be right Tippia this time you'll have to do without. A quote from the devs you hold so highly is above what you want to believe and how you would like to imagine it.
So again..there is no can nor is there a reason for an empty wreck to appear as if it belongs to the mission runner.It either does belong to the mission runner or its bad designed mini profession which was my point from page one.
You'll have to pick one but you can't have it all your way
I'll just leave this here for reference...
"In Kali all ships (player and NPC) will spawn wrecks upon destruction. This will replace the loot can."
|
HeIIfire11
|
Posted - 2011.04.29 23:23:00 -
[125]
Edited by: HeIIfire11 on 29/04/2011 23:23:54
Originally by: Tippia
Originally by: HeIIfire11 Without your make pretend can you have nothing else to bring to the table.
Read what I wrote: it's a model. It explains why things work the way they work, and why this is in line with what CCP claims.
What model and what does it explain where other than in your mind?
Originally by: Tippia
Originally by: HeIIfire11 And this is where the argument goes in my favor.
In favour of what?
In favor of it being unfinished content,bad designed mini profession and the cause of confusion which leads to these countless threads over and over again.
Originally by: Tippia
Originally by: HeIIfire11 ]This is also where my point is proven and the bad game design in this mini profession comes in..thus causing the confusion.
What is the bad game design? The confusion is very easily dispelled by looking at the model.
Again..what model? All I see is a wreck with my name on it restricted to me for all but salvage in my mission. As well as a dev blog where the introduction of wrecks says that they will replace said cans. Meaning they no longer exist.
Originally by: Tippia
Originally by: HeIIfire11 So again..there is no can nor is there a reason for an empty wreck to appear as if it belongs to the mission runner.
Yes there is: the mechanic to work around this did not exist at the time. You are judging a five year old implementation in the light of something that was put into the game one year ago. This does not make it bad game design, no matter how much you wish it did.
Exactly what is it that was introduced a year ago? Salvage is a good bit older than a year. Not only that it isn't an excuse for the confusion but a proof of unfinished content just thrown out without changing the older content to accomidate the new profession.
Originally by: Tippia
Originally by: HeIIfire11 It either does belong to the mission runner or its bad designed mini profession which was my point from page one.
àso how do you communicate the ownership of the loot, if not on the wreck?
Sorry I don't get paid to figure that out..infact I pay ccp to do so. Not to mention this is not relevant to the argument. The op made a point stating that it's bbad game design and I agree.This much has been proven by misleading quotes and misleading game mechanics to go along with it. Fixing it..even if I knew how,wont happen anyways.
|
HeIIfire11
|
Posted - 2011.04.29 23:31:00 -
[126]
Edited by: HeIIfire11 on 29/04/2011 23:31:48
Originally by: Tippia
Originally by: Jayson Lee Why can I blow up wrecks and the ninja salvager cant?
Because the wreck contains an owned object.
Quote: loot or not, can anyone else shoot a wreck without concord responding?
No, because, loot or not, the wreck always contains an owned object.
Originally by: Mortania If this were true, when the loot is removed, or there is none, then there should be no ownership placed on the wreck.
Easy, requires no blue application
How so?
So now we went from a can to an "owned object" ....I see
You're not helping the confusion any buddy
|
HeIIfire11
|
Posted - 2011.04.30 00:07:00 -
[127]
Edited by: HeIIfire11 on 30/04/2011 00:11:12
Originally by: Tippia
Originally by: HeIIfire11 What model and what does it explain where other than in your mind?
This model, and it explains the mechanics and how/why they are in line with CCP's statements.
Okay..page 17. Alot was said there and you expect me to pull something out of there? Don't be lazy..quote and explain what model you're talking about that explains what exactly?
Originally by: Tippia
Originally by: HeIIfire11 In favor of it being unfinished content,bad designed mini profession and the cause of confusion which leads to these countless threads over and over again.
How does replacing cans with wrecks make salvaging unfinished? How is it badly designed?
So at least you are admitting that cans were replaced..we are going places. What makes it unfinished is that the game does not show that the wreck belongs to no one as intended by ccp.
Originally by: Tippia
Originally by: HeIIfire11 All I see is a wreck with my name on it restricted to me for all but salvage in my mission. As well as a dev blog where the introduction of wrecks says that they will replace said cans. Meaning they no longer exist.
àexcept that cans still exist and still contain the loot.
An empty can contains no loot. Apart fromm the fact that they were replaced and no longer exist to begin with.
Originally by: Tippia
Originally by: HeIIfire11 Exactly what is it that was introduced a year ago?
Wreck abandonment. This could have solved the problem of empty wrecks showing up with an ownership flag, but that solution wasn't available at the time (salvaging was introduced five years ago). so you can't claim that salvaging was unfinished just because that didn't happen.
I can and do because they could have changed the old content while bringing in the new. It has been a year after all. And that is only a fix if the mission runner chooses to abandon the wreck and does so. Giving it up in free will not because the game design dictates it like it should to reflect the intended design.
Originally by: Tippia
Originally by: HeIIfire11 proof of unfinished content just thrown out without changing the older content to accomidate the new profession.
And exactly what was thrown out, and what wasn't changed?
The sloppy unfinished content was thrown out there without changing the wrecks tag to reflect the intended game design.
Originally by: Tippia
Originally by: HeIIfire11 Sorry I don't get paid to figure that out.
No, but you can be constructive and think about how to actually solve the problems you perceive. I've offered one solution that can be "implemented" (although that's not really the right wordà "taught" is perhaps better), but you've rejected it.
I can teach you that the sky is green doesn't make it so. Would help if the sky was green though. And the only one rejecting something here is you rejecting the fact that salvaging is unfinished content. And that the "can" no longer exists as an excuse for it.
Originally by: Tippia But perhaps most importantly: Quote: Not to mention this quote clearly stating that the wreck belongs to the mission runner.
So what? The ownership of the wreck is, in fact, 100% irrelevant.
Sorry no..thats what weve been arguing about for 18 pages. What belongs or appears to belong to who.
|
HeIIfire11
|
Posted - 2011.04.30 00:17:00 -
[128]
Edited by: HeIIfire11 on 30/04/2011 00:17:45 The almighty possum has spoken..nothing left to see here. Move along..move along.
|
HeIIfire11
|
Posted - 2011.04.30 00:27:00 -
[129]
Edited by: HeIIfire11 on 30/04/2011 00:28:24
Originally by: Mintala Arana The conflict between mission runner and ninja salvager is intentional.
Then why not flag the salvager and let the two go at it?
Edit:Or leave it be and fix the tag on the wrecks to reflect the desired effect.
|
HeIIfire11
|
Posted - 2011.04.30 01:24:00 -
[130]
Originally by: Tippia It's not that simple, because that would increase the reward set for missions, and that wouldn't be goodà
Says you..but we'll save that for next weeks discussion.
|
|
HeIIfire11
|
Posted - 2011.04.30 01:32:00 -
[131]
Edited by: HeIIfire11 on 30/04/2011 01:34:53
Originally by: Tippia Seeing as how they have to work harder for the salvage than the mission-runner do
Right...two weeks of skill training and a 1 million isk ship (fit) and a few days learning to scan.
Mission running takes way more until you get to where we are. I don't know if you fly a golem but my kronos damn sure took a lot more to get. Refitting and killing all the rats is still more effort than a ninja will ever do I don't see it.
Not to mention the required standing.
|
HeIIfire11
|
Posted - 2011.04.30 01:58:00 -
[132]
Edited by: HeIIfire11 on 30/04/2011 01:59:48
Originally by: Tippia Edited by: Tippia on 30/04/2011 01:47:03
Originally by: HeIIfire11 Right...two weeks of skill training and a 1 million isk ship (fit) and a few days learning to scan.
Yes. That's a few days more than the mission-runner needs.
Then there's the actual probing process, which is more work than rclick→warp to mission bookmark; dscanning the area and evaluating the hits (in relation to the ship(s) doing the mission), which is more work than sitting in the pocket and looking at the overview; travelling to each wreck and salvaging them, which is more work than sitting still and using tractorsà
Quote: Mission running takes way mor until you get to where we are.
Yes, mission-running requires a bit more than salvaging, but that's not what we're talking about ù this is about the work required to earn the salvage.
Quote: Refitting and killing all the rats is still more effort than a ninja will ever do I don't see it.
The mission-runner's effort to run the mission is compensated by the mission rewards. His effort to salvage the wrecks is compensated by the salvage, and that effort is much less than the ninja has to put in.
Quote: Not to mention the required standing.
Neither party needs any standing (beyond not being chased by the faction police) to salvage.
Originally by: Tanya Tarajaka Never tried it myself
Maybe you shouldà
I can't understand the way you think really.It's posts like this that make me think "does this guy really believe what he's saying?". Because this whole post is way off and just not right in so many ways.
Make two alts..one to run all lvl 4 missions and one to ninja salvage and then come back and tell me who gets going first.Not only that but tell me the costs of both professions and the end payout that isn't that far apart. Until then I'm going to stamp that post of yours as ******ed.
And yes lvl 4 agents require quite a bit of standing.
|
HeIIfire11
|
Posted - 2011.04.30 02:14:00 -
[133]
Edited by: HeIIfire11 on 30/04/2011 02:15:42
Ill break it down for you. In order to even get the chance to profit from a lvl 4 including its salvage you need...
1.Start at lvl 1. Tools needed...a frig fully fit around 5 million isk.
2.move on to lvl 2. Tools needed...a destroyer fully fit around 10 million isk.
3.move on to lvl 3. Tools needed...a battlecruiser fully fit around 60 million isk.
4.move on to lvl 4. Tools needed...a fully fit and well skilled battleship costing around 200 million isk.
And to do them fast and easy including tractor beaming and being able to salvage you need a marauder costing almost a billion isk fully fit.And a lot of skills in weapons and tank.
Now lets look at the salvagers career..lol do I even need to start?!?
Now who has it easier to get to that lvl salvage? Oh right it was the salvager
|
HeIIfire11
|
Posted - 2011.04.30 02:38:00 -
[134]
You're full of it lol. I think I gave you too much credit. Okay lets "race for the salvage". Oh wait ..without the mission runner there is no lvl 4 salvage. Lets roam the belts and scrap for two years in order to afford a cruiser
|
HeIIfire11
|
Posted - 2011.04.30 11:18:00 -
[135]
And it's still bad game design. You deal with that.
Bad game design which causes these countless threads over the years. Enough proof has been given to show that this is the case and where the confusion originates.
|
HeIIfire11
|
Posted - 2011.04.30 14:57:00 -
[136]
Originally by: Tippia Edited by: Tippia on 30/04/2011 14:48:48
Originally by: Tanya Tarajaka Problem is when it comes to the reality of point 5, not everyone has the same advantage when it comes to salvage. The ninja salvager has the advantage by far. There's nothing equal about it.
Any advantage the ninja salvager has is due to the mission runner giving them that advantage: they are trying to engage in the salvager profession with subpar equipment, whereas the ninja is not.
In such a situation, not only is it natural that the ninja will have an upper hand, it's good design that he has it. The inequality shows that it is working and that it's a reasonably even fight. Again, it's a competition ù a race for the resources ù and one of the competitors has chosen to run the race in wellies, whereas the other has actual running shoes. Why shouldn't that better choice give him an edge? Our wellies-man has a handy head start, but his equipment choice means he has squandered that advantage.
Quote: I know of people that have made it a full time profession, they made so much isk from it that one guy even started ninja salvaging level 4's in a Paladin (when Paladins were not cheap).
You should be happy, since he has chose to also run the race in wellies. The Palladin (indeed any battleship) is a horribly inefficient choice for ninja salvaging. Wellà maybe the Mach can see some use, but that only elevates it from "horrible" to "poor".
Cool story bro. Why don't you share some of that good stuff you're on? Be honest..those aren't normal lollipops are they
No matter how much you try to convince yourself there still is no can and because of that there is no reason for empty wrecks to have the mission runners name on them. So it is and will remain bad game design. Not only do you try to make excuses there but now you're saying that it's good game design?
CCP should hire you as their excuse maker..a sort of damage control. You should apply really.
|
HeIIfire11
|
Posted - 2011.04.30 15:08:00 -
[137]
Edited by: HeIIfire11 on 30/04/2011 15:09:32
Originally by: Tippia
Originally by: HeIIfire11 Not only do you try to make excuses there but now you're saying that it's good game design?
No, I'm not. Largely because I'm not talking about "it", by which you mean the wreck flagging, when I say that it's good design. But nice try twisting it.
I'm talking about the competitive element between salvagers ù it is well-designed and the inequalities that appear if you enter that competition with poor equipment is a testament to that.
Well "it" was the topic and nice try to you for trying to change that. I'll humor you for a while but when you start calling anything having to do with salvaging "good design" thats where I draw the line.
Still want one of those lollipops that come straight out of the seventies.
|
HeIIfire11
|
Posted - 2011.04.30 15:16:00 -
[138]
Originally by: Tippia
Originally by: HeIIfire11 Well "it" was the topic and nice try to you for trying to change that.
No, I'm not. Are you even trying any more?
I'm responding to Tanya Tarajaka's post, and both of them are on topic.
There isn't really much more to say.As far as I see it the case is clear.
And who has more risk or does more isn't the topic. It's the confusion the wreck mechanics cause,and if it's bad game design or not.This has been proven for all but those who are in the state of denial and swear on the perfection of ccp.
|
HeIIfire11
|
Posted - 2011.04.30 15:25:00 -
[139]
Originally by: Tippia
Originally by: HeIIfire11 As far as I see it the case is clear.
Yes it is: salvaging is not stealing, and considering the amount of communication to that effect, there is almost no room for confusion.
Quote: And who has more risk or does more isn't the topic.
Sure it is. The OP himself brought it up. Just because you have chosen to pick up on the design part of the the larger discussion doesn't mean that it's the only part of the discussion.
Yes I'll give you the it's not stealing part but the bad game mechanics failing to make that clear are bad game design and this has also been proven.
|
HeIIfire11
|
Posted - 2011.04.30 17:01:00 -
[140]
Edited by: HeIIfire11 on 30/04/2011 17:02:05
Originally by: Pete 0 Bear OMFG.
20 pages of WorldOfFailcraft twits crying that everything is theirs even when the developers say that it isn't.....
It may work like that in WOF (who knowns, I won't touch that poop with a 10ft barge pole) but here in EvE it doesnt.
The salvager is NOT a thief until he steals the loot out of the can. If he does you can kill him. The wreck is not yours, what is yours when you kill the NPC is the ISK and LP awarded to you. ISK and LP is all that you are entitled to. The salvage from said wreck can be yours WHEN and IF you salvage it with a salvage module. CCP have deemed it that ANYONE can salvage ANY wreck because, as stated before, NO-ONE owns the wreck.
Want the salvage? Salvage it before anyone else does. CCP have made it easy with the invention of the noctis with its 80km tractor range and boosted salvage module times.
These forums are used only by a small percentage of the EvE population and it speaks volumes that only 2-3 vocal WoW'ers want EvE mechanics changed to be like WoW. That won't happen.
If you want WoW mechanics, WoW is over thar ------->
Lots of "wow" in this post..maybe you need to go back there since you know so much about it. And its 21 pages thank you
Name says it all really
|
|
HeIIfire11
|
Posted - 2011.04.30 21:12:00 -
[141]
Originally by: Captain Megadeath
Originally by: 3up***ia but continuously sticking to game mechanics that tend to **** off large chunks of their playerbase doesn't give them any cool points either.
Proofs?
Rageposts from 1 or 2 people with comprehension problems don't count as "large chunks"
The only one with comprehension problems is you,and the fanboy bandwagon you rode in on. If you would have taken the time too read the thread and not just stamp it as another ninja salvager thread you would know that it has infact been stated and proven that the current game mechanics involving wreck ownership is the cause of this problem.
CCP saying so means jack **** honestly. I am aware of their intentions on the game mechanic and as they are the developers of eve online it is their right. But if they want to patch sloppy game content with the excuse "because we say so" they shouldn't brag about "excellence".
They also shouldn't complain when people get ****ed about game mechanics that reflect the exact opposite of what they say their intentions are,nor should their fanboys.
|
HeIIfire11
|
Posted - 2011.04.30 21:21:00 -
[142]
Edited by: HeIIfire11 on 30/04/2011 21:23:45
Originally by: Tippia
Originally by: HeIIfire11 They also shouldn't complain when people get ****ed about game mechanics that reflect the exact opposite of what they say their intentions are
àexcept that the mechanics reflact exactly what their intentions are: salvaging doesn't cause flagging.
What ever fanboy if you don't understand yet you never will.There is no can nor is there a reason for an empty wreck to have the mission runners name on it. No reason other than we don't feel like fixing it. Period.
Like it or not that's the way it is. The contradicting posts and dev blogs don't help either. There are blogs saying the wreck belongs to the mission runner which is enough proof in itself. Don't like the truth move on and quit banging your head against it. You are wrong.
And no one ever said salvaging caused flagging...nice try.
|
HeIIfire11
|
Posted - 2011.04.30 21:31:00 -
[143]
Edited by: HeIIfire11 on 30/04/2011 21:35:41
Originally by: Tippia
Originally by: HeIIfire11 There is no can nor is there a reason for an empty wrech to have the mission runners name on it.
Sure there is: technical limitations.
Quote: The contradicting posts and dev blogs don't help either.
àexcept that they don't contradict each other either. The (supposed) ownership of the wreck (which you know full well signifies the ownership of any loot that might be inside it) is 100% inconsequential to the fact that anyone can salvage those wrecks.
Just because you say so isn't good enough. Show proof of these technical limitations or get a "ccp" next to your name. Until then your opinion is nothing more than a lucky guess and couldn't be any further from the fact. Argument is worthless.
And I know nothing full and well..I know what I read and this states... 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 there is your contradiction in black and white..but it's ok,continue to deny the truth.
Not to mention the fact that the wreck is limited to the mission runner for all but to salvage,can not be tractor beamed or shot by anyone else. The game mechanics all show that this is my wreck and the only thing speaking against it is that ccp says so. I can very well understand where the confusion comes from and I'm truly sorry that your mind is technically too limited to do the same.
|
HeIIfire11
|
Posted - 2011.04.30 21:42:00 -
[144]
Edited by: HeIIfire11 on 30/04/2011 21:45:31 Edited by: HeIIfire11 on 30/04/2011 21:43:33
Originally by: Tippia Edited by: Tippia on 30/04/2011 21:35:44
Originally by: HeIIfire11 Just because you say so isn't good enough. Show proof of these technical limitations or get a "ccp" next to your name.
No. You prove it. You're the one making the assertion that there is no reason for leaving the name there. Prove it. Until then, your opinion is nothing more and couldn't be any further from the fact.
Quote: So there is your contradiction in black and white.
Where is the contradiction? He doesn't even mention salvaging, much less that the supposed wreck ownership is of any relevance as far as who can salvage the wreck.
No you made the assumption they are technically limited so show us how you think you know anything about their code. Or any code for that matter.
You have no idea what their technically limited to...none what so ever. Nor did they state this anywhere. You just assume this and hold on to it as a fact. Wrong..plain and simply wrong.
And the gm may have not mentioned salvaging but he mentioned who the wrecks belong to which the game mechanics show. Thus causing the confusion.
|
HeIIfire11
|
Posted - 2011.04.30 21:49:00 -
[145]
Originally by: Tosser Galore . You can not expect (as the OP does), that CCP will hand over free game mechanics to protect high sec mission runners.
Yet ninja salvagers are given the free right and protection by concord
Why should we expect anything less than them? The example has been set.
|
HeIIfire11
|
Posted - 2011.04.30 21:55:00 -
[146]
Originally by: Tippia Edited by: Tippia on 30/04/2011 21:50:09
Originally by: HeIIfire11 No you made the assumption they are technically limited
No, this is your assumption.
I'm saying that this is a possible reason for leaving the name there. The first on your list of things to prove. You made the assertion that there are none; you have to prove that assertion; you go off and find proof that the off-the-top-of-my-head suggestion that technical limitations is one possible reason is, in fact, actually not a possible explanation.
Chop-chop.
If this came from ccp yes I would see it in my interest to prove it being false. But since it is nothing more than your ******ed logic I don't need to prove anything. I simply take it as false. You are in no position to speak or make assumptions on the behalf of ccp.
Chop chop my ass
|
HeIIfire11
|
Posted - 2011.04.30 22:03:00 -
[147]
I have said all I have to say on this topic. Those that are capable of thinking for themselves will see the point and the fanboys/trolls will stay just that.
So go ahead and have your last word and keep your ignorant opinion. It will do nothing but show your "technical limitations"
|
HeIIfire11
|
Posted - 2011.05.02 01:27:00 -
[148]
Originally by: Solstice Project Halp!! I can't read, please.
Fixed.
|
HeIIfire11
|
Posted - 2011.05.03 13:45:00 -
[149]
Originally by: Jennifer Starling
Originally by: Amarraz Thief Salvaging
Filthy little thieves! They stole the precious!
Wicked! Tricksy! False!
Oh no you just didn't...
Don't make me crank this sucker back up
|
HeIIfire11
|
Posted - 2011.05.03 14:20:00 -
[150]
Originally by: Malcanis What have I got in my deadspace pocket?
A hole for easy access?
|
|
|
|
|