But I fought those aliens - those who did die aren't "free" loot, they didn't become such just because, they were killed by air defences I spent money on and built exactly so they can kill aliens. That's why the effect looks like penalizing the player for using the facilities (air defences) the way they were meant to be used.
...which brings us full circle - again. Going by that argument, you should also get full loot when you destroy the UFO - after all, those aliens "were killed by air defences I spent money on and built exactly so they can kill aliens" too, weren't they? See why this doesn't add up? No, you don't get penalized - you're simply fighting less aliens.
And again,
how is this supposed to work in-game? Do the surviving aliens drag their dead comrades out of the departing UFO into your hangar bays just so you don't have to feel penalized? I don't think so. This is simply a ridiculous idea you're trying to float, and implementing it would lead to even more inconsistencies.
If you don't see a difference between shooting down an UFO to salvage it and claiming one which landed during base raid, it sounds like by your logic, for the sake of consistency, claiming the latter after the base raid should be a thing.
That's not my logic - i don't think you should be able to do that - but it's a logical extension of what you're proposing. How else are you supposed to be able to claim those bodies&equipment? Either the aliens take time and drag them out of the departing UFO, or you recover them from the UFO that's still sitting above your base - unmanned and defenseless - but somehow isn't part of the recovery.
Tell me, which of those options sounds less ridiculous to you?
How about a third option - one that acutally makes sense - the missing aliens were killed & vaporized upon impact, destroying their bodies&equipment. Problem solved.
Out of curiosity, why do you think it's ridiculous, aside from simply your subjective and arbitrary decision that in one case it should be a thing (salvaging downed UFO) and in the other - not?
Because it would utterly break the game balance, among other things.
You should benefit from base attacks at all because those are opportunities where source of the benefit comes to you with items and materials that are benefit. I understand you have an opinion but you base your whole argument on "cause I think/say so". Don't you think that such, especially in the context of you questioning my logic in your first "logic much?", just on account of your personal taste, cause you like things in some particular way is needlessly rude and unfitting as an argument?
I explicitly said that 'not benefitting from base attacks' was MY opinion. That has nothing to to with your proposition. Stop trying to redirect the argument.
[snip]I'm fine to agree to disagree but we won't get anywhere further than that in such a way cause you provide absolutely no arguments, merely telling me how you like or dislike things.
I've pointed out multiple times why your idea makes no sense, and you have yet to adress the most glaring shortcomings of what you're proposing. I'm not the one having no arguments. You're on thin ice right now, i'd advise you take a step back and actually look at what your proposition would entail.
