These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
123Next page
 

Self destruct capitals on citadels is wrong

Author
Natural CloneKiller
Commonwealth Mercenaries
BLACKFLAG.
#1 - 2017-01-27 09:04:36 UTC
We recently did a worm hole eviction and the owner of 10 capitals self destructed these on their citadel whilst being tethered. Please can this be reviewed by the community and by ccp.
Van Doe
#2 - 2017-01-27 09:18:57 UTC
So?
What's the problem?
Recently I crashed a gate camp and came out on the other side.

I'm not trolling, I create content for everyone to enjoy. afk cloaky in a system near you while posting in this forum.

Van Doe
#3 - 2017-01-27 09:23:04 UTC
The defender made it absolutely right.
Even he lost he managed to control his loss.

I'm not trolling, I create content for everyone to enjoy. afk cloaky in a system near you while posting in this forum.

Frostys Virpio
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
#4 - 2017-01-27 14:06:56 UTC
Natural CloneKiller wrote:
We recently did a worm hole eviction and the owner of 10 capitals self destructed these on their citadel whilst being tethered. Please can this be reviewed by the community and by ccp.


I fail to see a problem with that. Did it somehow prevent you from performing an eviction?
Lugh Crow-Slave
#5 - 2017-01-27 14:07:59 UTC
Enemy asset denial is an old and legitimate tactic
Danika Princip
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#6 - 2017-01-27 14:12:59 UTC
Please explain to the class why you feel that you are entitled to killmails, and that the owner of a ship should not be able to self destruct just to spite you.

The ship is dead either way, what difference does it make in the end?
Lugh Crow-Slave
#7 - 2017-01-27 14:14:37 UTC
Danika Princip wrote:
Please explain to the class why you feel that you are entitled to killmails, and that the owner of a ship should not be able to self destruct just to spite you.

The ship is dead either way, what difference does it make in the end?



This is why I feel kill mails should just be removed
Donnachadh
United Allegiance of Undesirables
#8 - 2017-01-27 14:16:23 UTC
Because you were able to evict them from the worm hole does not guarantee you the right to the kill mail for those ships. As Lugh Crow-Slave states asset denial (scorched earth) is one of the oldest tricks in the book and it is a valid game play option for all people and in all circumstances.
Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local
Break-A-Wish Foundation
#9 - 2017-01-27 15:21:14 UTC  |  Edited by: Vimsy Vortis
Frostys Virpio wrote:
I fail to see a problem with that. Did it somehow prevent you from performing an eviction?

Self destructing for the insurance money while totally invulnerable is as janky as all hell.

The tethering mechanic in general is as janky as all hell. Being able to use features of your ship normally while completely invulnerable to any kind of harm is not sensible game design.
Frostys Virpio
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
#10 - 2017-01-27 15:50:08 UTC
Vimsy Vortis wrote:
Frostys Virpio wrote:
I fail to see a problem with that. Did it somehow prevent you from performing an eviction?

Self destructing for the insurance money while totally invulnerable is as janky as all hell.

The tethering mechanic in general is as janky as all hell. Being able to use features of your ship normally while completely invulnerable to any kind of harm is not sensible game design.


Self destructing for insurance money or YOLOing for insurance money makes no difference. It's not like the invulnerability of the ship prevent it from exploding.

Lugh Crow-Slave
#11 - 2017-01-27 16:31:31 UTC
Vimsy Vortis wrote:
Frostys Virpio wrote:
I fail to see a problem with that. Did it somehow prevent you from performing an eviction?

Self destructing for the insurance money while totally invulnerable is as janky as all hell.

The tethering mechanic in general is as janky as all hell. Being able to use features of your ship normally while completely invulnerable to any kind of harm is not sensible game design.



... but he would have got the insurance either way I think you are really starting to reach now
Lan Wang
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#12 - 2017-01-27 16:39:25 UTC
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
Vimsy Vortis wrote:
Frostys Virpio wrote:
I fail to see a problem with that. Did it somehow prevent you from performing an eviction?

Self destructing for the insurance money while totally invulnerable is as janky as all hell.

The tethering mechanic in general is as janky as all hell. Being able to use features of your ship normally while completely invulnerable to any kind of harm is not sensible game design.



... but he would have got the insurance either way I think you are really starting to reach now


depends if they were insured in an npc station, either way the caps died the op's actions caused the target to suicide 10 caps, whats the issue here?

Domination Nephilim - Angel Cartel

Calm down miner. As you pointed out, people think they can get away with stuff they would not in rl... Like for example illegal mining... - Ima Wreckyou*

Danika Princip
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#13 - 2017-01-27 17:05:30 UTC
Vimsy Vortis wrote:
Frostys Virpio wrote:
I fail to see a problem with that. Did it somehow prevent you from performing an eviction?

Self destructing for the insurance money while totally invulnerable is as janky as all hell.

The tethering mechanic in general is as janky as all hell. Being able to use features of your ship normally while completely invulnerable to any kind of harm is not sensible game design.


But using the self destruct feature does not affect anyone else in any way, shape or form. What's the problem here?
Sonya Corvinus
Grant Village
#14 - 2017-01-28 11:53:28 UTC
Vimsy Vortis wrote:
Self destructing for the insurance money while totally invulnerable is as janky as all hell.

The tethering mechanic in general is as janky as all hell. Being able to use features of your ship normally while completely invulnerable to any kind of harm is not sensible game design.


Why? In this scenario the occupants were still evicted, op successful. What's the problem?
Donnachadh
United Allegiance of Undesirables
#15 - 2017-01-28 15:59:07 UTC
Vimsy Vortis wrote:
Frostys Virpio wrote:
I fail to see a problem with that. Did it somehow prevent you from performing an eviction?

Self destructing for the insurance money while totally invulnerable is as janky as all hell.

The tethering mechanic in general is as janky as all hell. Being able to use features of your ship normally while completely invulnerable to any kind of harm is not sensible game design.

And yet those "janky" mechanics did not protect the dweller, or prevent them from being evicted from the worm hole so how bad can they really be?

At the core this topic is nothing more than a whiny butt post about how someone robbed the OP of a kill mail they believe they "deserve" because eviction from worm hole. In reality what happened here was the OP was simply out thought and out played, the owner of those ships realized they were going to die any way so they retaliated in the only way they could in the situation they were faced with, they denied the OP and their group the nice fat juicy kill mails by self destructing those ships.
Wolfgang Jannesen
Line Ark Security Service Incorperated
#16 - 2017-01-28 16:03:14 UTC
You guys also talk like the insurance money you get back still isn't a huge loss.
Cade Windstalker
#17 - 2017-01-28 16:39:51 UTC
So, correct me if I'm wrong here, but can't you do exactly the same thing with a POS?

Pretty sure you can and have been able to for literally a decade now. Citadels have changed literally nothing, though strictly speaking I guess they could have reprocessed those ships in the Citadel and had a chance at evacing the ore, so that's another way around feeding you Killmails or loot...
Natural CloneKiller
Commonwealth Mercenaries
BLACKFLAG.
#18 - 2017-01-28 18:56:31 UTC
Frostys Virpio wrote:
Natural CloneKiller wrote:
We recently did a worm hole eviction and the owner of 10 capitals self destructed these on their citadel whilst being tethered. Please can this be reviewed by the community and by ccp.


I fail to see a problem with that. Did it somehow prevent you from performing an eviction?



Eviction was real. Just saying if someone self destructs in a worm hole to me I should be able to shoot the guy.
Van Doe
#19 - 2017-01-28 20:24:45 UTC
Natural CloneKiller wrote:
Frostys Virpio wrote:
Natural CloneKiller wrote:
We recently did a worm hole eviction and the owner of 10 capitals self destructed these on their citadel whilst being tethered. Please can this be reviewed by the community and by ccp.


I fail to see a problem with that. Did it somehow prevent you from performing an eviction?



Eviction was real. Just saying if someone self destructs in a worm hole to me I should be able to shoot the guy.

Mimimi my kilboard minimi
Mimimi I want easy/free kills mimimi
Mimimi I want free loot mimimi

I'm not trolling, I create content for everyone to enjoy. afk cloaky in a system near you while posting in this forum.

Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#20 - 2017-01-29 10:57:46 UTC
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
Danika Princip wrote:
Please explain to the class why you feel that you are entitled to killmails, and that the owner of a ship should not be able to self destruct just to spite you.

The ship is dead either way, what difference does it make in the end?



This is why I feel kill mails should just be removed


I don't mind kill mails. But this constant nonsense of making changes because of "but my kill mails!!!!" is more than a bit pathetic.

You won, stop being such a sore winner FFS.

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online

123Next page