These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
Previous page123Next page
 

Self destruct capitals on citadels is wrong

Author
Frostys Virpio
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
#21 - 2017-01-29 18:18:28 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.


Call the whaaaaambulance guys, this guy didn't get to shoot a few self-destructing caps.
Kenrailae
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#22 - 2017-01-29 19:05:40 UTC
HTFU.

The Law is a point of View

The NPE IS a big deal

Black Pedro
Mine.
#23 - 2017-01-29 20:03:27 UTC
No, the OP is right. A killmail should be generated that accurately reflects what takes place in the game and what you exploded whenever possible. Holes like yanking out implants or self-destructing ships behind a tether or POS should be plugged. There is absolutely no reason why a tether should not just shut-off when you start a self-destruct sequence so the opposing fleet can help send your ship on its way to Valhalla.

Now is this a big problem, or one that merits priority above all the other problems or inconsistencies in the game? Of course not. The accuracy of killmails is pretty far down the list given there is no real in game consequence to missing or inaccurate killmails. But on principle, the OP is correct that those ships exploded because of his group's superior play and thus there should be a record of it.
Lugh Crow-Slave
#24 - 2017-01-30 01:11:15 UTC
Black Pedro wrote:
No, the OP is right. A killmail should be generated that accurately reflects what takes place in the game and what you exploded whenever possible. Holes like yanking out implants or self-destructing ships behind a tether or POS should be plugged. There is absolutely no reason why a tether should not just shut-off when you start a self-destruct sequence so the opposing fleet can help send your ship on its way to Valhalla.

Now is this a big problem, or one that merits priority above all the other problems or inconsistencies in the game? Of course not. The accuracy of killmails is pretty far down the list given there is no real in game consequence to missing or inaccurate killmails. But on principle, the OP is correct that those ships exploded because of his group's superior play and thus there should be a record of it.



KMs should be removed not made more accurate if anything these 'holes' are the only way to counter this massive system of free intel
Kenrailae
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#25 - 2017-01-30 03:01:43 UTC
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
Black Pedro wrote:
No, the OP is right. A killmail should be generated that accurately reflects what takes place in the game and what you exploded whenever possible. Holes like yanking out implants or self-destructing ships behind a tether or POS should be plugged. There is absolutely no reason why a tether should not just shut-off when you start a self-destruct sequence so the opposing fleet can help send your ship on its way to Valhalla.

Now is this a big problem, or one that merits priority above all the other problems or inconsistencies in the game? Of course not. The accuracy of killmails is pretty far down the list given there is no real in game consequence to missing or inaccurate killmails. But on principle, the OP is correct that those ships exploded because of his group's superior play and thus there should be a record of it.



KMs should be removed not made more accurate if anything these 'holes' are the only way to counter this massive system of free intel



Nah.


But all the more power to someone using mechanics to screw attackers over with asset denial. That's Eve.

The Law is a point of View

The NPE IS a big deal

Black Pedro
Mine.
#26 - 2017-01-30 07:25:12 UTC
Kenrailae wrote:
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
Black Pedro wrote:
No, the OP is right. A killmail should be generated that accurately reflects what takes place in the game and what you exploded whenever possible. Holes like yanking out implants or self-destructing ships behind a tether or POS should be plugged. There is absolutely no reason why a tether should not just shut-off when you start a self-destruct sequence so the opposing fleet can help send your ship on its way to Valhalla.

Now is this a big problem, or one that merits priority above all the other problems or inconsistencies in the game? Of course not. The accuracy of killmails is pretty far down the list given there is no real in game consequence to missing or inaccurate killmails. But on principle, the OP is correct that those ships exploded because of his group's superior play and thus there should be a record of it.



KMs should be removed not made more accurate if anything these 'holes' are the only way to counter this massive system of free intel



Nah.


But all the more power to someone using mechanics to screw attackers over with asset denial. That's Eve.

Asset denial is one thing. Cheesing the mechanics to not generate a killmail is another. There is a reason CCP turned off the ability to 'trash' items when a structure is reinforced to prevent exactly this petty game of denying an opponent credit or loot. If you beat another group you should be entitled to both the credit, and whatever loot the defenders cannot or will not save. You could still undock in a capital and self-destruct it to deny your opponent the asset.

Given CCP made attempts to prevent exactly this behaviour when implementing the new structures and this hole undermines that, and that there is no valid game reason to allow invulnerable self-destructs to complete under tether, I give the idea a +1. There is also not much of a real downside of the current status quo so I fully understand if CCP never gets around to fixing this. It seems simple enough though just to have the tether shut-off when the self-destruct sequence starts.
Kenrailae
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#27 - 2017-01-30 08:19:08 UTC
Black Pedro wrote:
Asset denial is one thing. Cheesing the mechanics to not generate a killmail is another. There is a reason CCP turned off the ability to 'trash' items when a structure is reinforced to prevent exactly this petty game of denying an opponent credit or loot. If you beat another group you should be entitled to both the credit, and whatever loot the defenders cannot or will not save. You could still undock in a capital and self-destruct it to deny your opponent the asset.

Given CCP made attempts to prevent exactly this behaviour when implementing the new structures and this hole undermines that, and that there is no valid game reason to allow invulnerable self-destructs to complete under tether, I give the idea a +1. There is also not much of a real downside of the current status quo so I fully understand if CCP never gets around to fixing this. It seems simple enough though just to have the tether shut-off when the self-destruct sequence starts.



But it's okay to cheese them to get a killmail you shouldn't have gotten, right?


Nah, this is a fair use of the mechanic. -1

The Law is a point of View

The NPE IS a big deal

Lugh Crow-Slave
#28 - 2017-01-30 08:37:36 UTC
Black Pedro wrote:

Asset denial is one thing. Cheesing the mechanics to not generate a killmail is another. There is a reason CCP turned off the ability to 'trash' items when a structure is reinforced to prevent exactly this petty game of denying an opponent credit or loot. If you beat another group you should be entitled to both the credit,



1 cpp did that so you could not trash it all with the click of a button


2 this is eve if you think you are entitled to anything you're playing the wrong game
Black Pedro
Mine.
#29 - 2017-01-30 09:01:33 UTC
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
Black Pedro wrote:

Asset denial is one thing. Cheesing the mechanics to not generate a killmail is another. There is a reason CCP turned off the ability to 'trash' items when a structure is reinforced to prevent exactly this petty game of denying an opponent credit or loot. If you beat another group you should be entitled to both the credit,



1 cpp did that so you could not trash it all with the click of a button


2 this is eve if you think you are entitled to anything you're playing the wrong game
No, you are entitled to log into a playable server, and enjoy a consistent and logically implemented game. That is, of course, why we do business with CCP.

CCP clearly intends for ships to generate a killmail when the pilot self-destructs under pressure from other players. Killmail generation after a self-destruct was not always the case and they went out of their way to make changes so that happened. It is perfectly reasonable to point out that is no longer happening because of a newer change to the game given that the situation described in the OP is almost certainly not an intended feature or function of tethering.

I maintain that the ability to self-destruct while protected by a tether isn't consistent with CCP vision of killmails, at least the one they had in the past when they made the Inferno changes, and thus tethering should not be allowed during the self-destruct sequence. However, given the problem isn't game-breaking, I don't see any urgency. Just add it to the list of structure tweaks/fixes and if and when someone gets that far down the list and the fix is simple, implement it. Why shouldn't CCP do that? Is there some interesting game play or value added to the game by allowing people to dodge killmails that I am missing?




Kenrailae
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#30 - 2017-01-30 09:19:16 UTC
Black Pedro wrote:
No, you are entitled to log into a playable server, and enjoy a consistent and logically implemented game. That is, of course, why we do business with CCP.

CCP clearly intends for ships to generate a killmail when the pilot self-destructs under pressure from other players. Killmail generation after a self-destruct was not always the case and they went out of their way to make changes so that happened. It is perfectly reasonable to point out that is no longer happening because of a newer change to the game given that the situation described in the OP is almost certainly not an intended feature or function of tethering.

I maintain that the ability to self-destruct while protected by a tether isn't consistent with CCP vision of killmails, at least the one they had in the past when they made the Inferno changes, and thus tethering should not be allowed during the self-destruct sequence. However, given the problem isn't game-breaking, I don't see any urgency. Just add it to the list of structure tweaks/fixes and if and when someone gets that far down the list and the fix is simple, implement it. Why shouldn't CCP do that? Is there some interesting game play or value added to the game by allowing people to dodge killmails that I am missing?







You're very clearly missing something. Your example is for ships tackled or engaged in combat trying to deny a killmail by SD'ing. Ships tethered to a citadel are NOT engaged in combat or aggressed. It'd also be a pretty colossal oversight, even for CCP, to assume that players would never SD while tethered. It is 100% no different than the old mechanic of self destructing in a POS shield. I s'pose next you're going to suggest that everyone who activates SD in a POS shield should be jettisoned? Actually, no, I lied. It IS different than POS shields. At least with Citadels you have a chance of bumping ships off until they fix the tethered/bump mechanic. So you're already getting an improvement.


HTFU and stop complaining about people being intelligent in this game. Bob knows we have enough F1 monkeys to go around.

The Law is a point of View

The NPE IS a big deal

Black Pedro
Mine.
#31 - 2017-01-30 10:13:08 UTC
Kenrailae wrote:
HTFU and stop complaining about people being intelligent in this game. Bob knows we have enough F1 monkeys to go around.
I am not complaining about anything. I am just agreeing with the OP that this situation isn't consistent with the general mechanism for self-destructing things.

If CCP wants to be consistent they should change it. If they have better things to do then fine with me. Did you read through the comments in that thread I linked though? Five years ago there was almost universal agreement that dodging killmails by self-destructing was a bad thing and something that needed to be fixed. Nothing has changed that I can see, and letting it continue, when it could just be a line or two added to the tethering code to fix it, just because it has always been that way in POSes is a poor argument.

Whatever, it bothers me not either way. But I do find the quickness to resort to 'HTFU' without a single reasoned argument supporting why it is better to allow people to dodge killmails in this thread quite amusing. The OP has a point, and just because things have always been sort of broken in POSes isn't a reason not to address it. If there is a valid reason why the game is better for keeping the ability to dodge killmails while tethered I would be happy to hear and consider it.
Shrimp And Grittz
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#32 - 2017-01-30 10:21:00 UTC
What's the problem? He owns that asset and can do as he wishes.... this isn't an exploit. I'm sorry you can't glorify your shrine on eve killboards. The point or reason of evicting him for that system should outweigh looking at silly killboard.........
Kenrailae
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#33 - 2017-01-30 11:00:18 UTC  |  Edited by: Kenrailae
Black Pedro wrote:
I am not complaining about anything. I am just agreeing with the OP that this situation isn't consistent with the general mechanism for self-destructing things.

If CCP wants to be consistent they should change it. If they have better things to do then fine with me. Did you read through the comments in that thread I linked though? Five years ago there was almost universal agreement that dodging killmails by self-destructing was a bad thing and something that needed to be fixed. Nothing has changed that I can see, and letting it continue, when it could just be a line or two added to the tethering code to fix it, just because it has always been that way in POSes is a poor argument.

Whatever, it bothers me not either way. But I do find the quickness to resort to 'HTFU' without a single reasoned argument supporting why it is better to allow people to dodge killmails in this thread quite amusing. The OP has a point, and just because things have always been sort of broken in POSes isn't a reason not to address it. If there is a valid reason why the game is better for keeping the ability to dodge killmails while tethered I would be happy to hear and consider it.



If you can't find a 'single reasoned argument' in what's been written all through this thread then you're just choosing to be obtuse. But since you are either deliberately choosing to be obtuse, or cannot help it, lemme spell it out for you again:


This is COMPLETELY consistent with self destructing in POS's mechanics already in place, in terms of being able to self destruct while invulnerable to deny assets and 'GF's to people sieging your stuff. That's not broken. That's what the POS bubble is for, a little bubble in space you or your stuff can't be shot in. What you choose to do in your bubble is up to you, as long as someone else doesn't decide to come along and blow your bubble up. That's how they were designed, not some unintended borked consequence. THAT is the consistency, not your assumption that you're entitled to KM's just cause you attacked a thing. You're not promised KM's just because you attack someones thing, just like they're not promised their thing is safe just because they put it down. The OP's 'point' is that he thinks he should get KM's just cause he shot a thing. That is not how Eve works.


Also, players have every right to snarkily SD their stuff with a giant finger in the air, if they can find a way to do it. More power to them for using their brain and ruining your fun. Eve PVP isn't just about making killmails. It's about doing it in style, and when you can't, denying those who would make a KM out of you any enjoyment whatsoever.


Bye bye obtuse boy.

The Law is a point of View

The NPE IS a big deal

Lugh Crow-Slave
#34 - 2017-01-30 11:07:52 UTC
Black Pedro wrote:
Kenrailae wrote:
HTFU and stop complaining about people being intelligent in this game. Bob knows we have enough F1 monkeys to go around.
I am not complaining about anything. I am just agreeing with the OP that this situation isn't consistent with the general mechanism for self-destructing things.





but yes it is...


if you are not aggressed and you self destruct no kill mail.

if you have no weapons timer and nothing locked you are tethered

if you are tethered you can not be aggressed


so if i undock lock nothing and self destruct nothing is inconsistent



also friends and i went to sisi to find out that you can bump a carrier outside of tether range in under two minutes even if the carrier is trying to push back. since all you need is to activate one aggressive module for a KM to generate its entirely doable.
Black Pedro
Mine.
#35 - 2017-01-30 12:26:45 UTC
Kenrailae wrote:
This is COMPLETELY consistent with self destructing in POS's mechanics already in place, in terms of being able to self destruct while invulnerable to deny assets and 'GF's to people sieging your stuff. That's not broken. That's what the POS bubble is for, a little bubble in space you or your stuff can't be shot in.

No, it is completely inconsistent with self-destruct mechanics everywhere else in the game. Sure, it might replicate POS functionality, but there is no reason that it should. It doesn't add anything to the game, and only gives players an out from suffering the consequences of being outplayed while providing nothing of value to the game.

I don't care either way. I would not be surprised if CCP left it this way because it really doesn't change much, but I would be equally unsuprised if at some point down the road they decide to plug the get-out-of-a-killmail hole that tethering now provides.

I am not sure why you are so worked up over such a non-issue. Killmails, while useful as a tangible memory of some in-game event, are already not perfect intel and open to error and manipulation, as they still would be if tethering shut off when you started your self-destruct. They are just a limited, but official record of what went on the game that doesn't directly impact the game in any way. The OP raises a valid point, and it is now up to CCP to decide if they want to fix the loophole that allows players to self-destruct ships without generating a killmail, or whether they think it not worth the effort to change the status quo.

Yelling HTFU at me or the OP isn't really much of an argument.

Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:

so if i undock lock nothing and self destruct nothing is inconsistent



also friends and i went to sisi to find out that you can bump a carrier outside of tether range in under two minutes even if the carrier is trying to push back. since all you need is to activate one aggressive module for a KM to generate its entirely doable.
It is inconsistent. If you are cornered in space and decide to self-destruct because of my blockade, but I cannot lock you because of a giant magic space beam, you get out of a killmail even though my group induced you to explode. This ability to avoid a killmail adds nothing to the game. There is no reason that the game is better because it exists. In fact, all the same reasons the self-destruct mechanics were changed in Inferno still apply. There is nothing unique about this situation that merits a special rule, and while we might have had a special rule for the last few years because of how POSes worked, there is no reason that should continue.

As for bumping out of tethering range, wasn't the plan to include an anti-bumping effect for tethered ships? Did CCP give up on that? If so, that is already a change from the POS situation that you two are holding up as some sort of gospel that must be forever maintained just because it was once so. That said, I am still pretty sure CCP still plans to implement an effect that prevents bumping of tethered ships before they completely remove POSes. Maybe that would be a good time to add the tether shut-off for a self-destructing ship?

Whatever, I don't care. The ship is lost either way and while I love a killmail as much as the next guy, they really don't have much concrete meaning in the game beyond an imperfect source of intel and bragging rights. The OP is correct however that this isn't how killmails work everywhere else, and more importantly, there is no good reason why ships tethered to structures (or inside POSes) should have some special exemption. Any such exemption was just a side-effect of how POS shields worked, and if we can improve the consistency of killmails by just having the tether turn off when the destruct sequence starts, I am all for it.
Lugh Crow-Slave
#36 - 2017-01-30 12:45:19 UTC
Black Pedro wrote:
Kenrailae wrote:
This is COMPLETELY consistent with self destructing in POS's mechanics already in place, in terms of being able to self destruct while invulnerable to deny assets and 'GF's to people sieging your stuff. That's not broken. That's what the POS bubble is for, a little bubble in space you or your stuff can't be shot in.

No, it is completely inconsistent with self-destruct mechanics everywhere else in the game. Sure, it might replicate POS functionality, but there is no reason that it should. It doesn't add anything to the game, and only gives players an out from suffering the consequences of being outplayed while providing nothing of value to the game.

I don't care either way. I would not be surprised if CCP left it this way because it really doesn't change much, but I would be equally unsuprised if at some point down the road they decide to plug the get-out-of-a-killmail hole that tethering now provides.

I am not sure why you are so worked up over such a non-issue. Killmails, while useful as a tangible memory of some in-game event, are already not perfect intel and open to error and manipulation, as they still would be if tethering shut off when you started your self-destruct. They are just a limited, but official record of what went on the game that doesn't directly impact the game in any way. The OP raises a valid point, and it is now up to CCP to decide if they want to fix the loophole that allows players to self-destruct ships without generating a killmail, or whether they think it not worth the effort to change the status quo.

Yelling HTFU at me or the OP isn't really much of an argument.

Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:

so if i undock lock nothing and self destruct nothing is inconsistent



also friends and i went to sisi to find out that you can bump a carrier outside of tether range in under two minutes even if the carrier is trying to push back. since all you need is to activate one aggressive module for a KM to generate its entirely doable.
It is inconsistent. If you are cornered in space and decide to self-destruct because of my blockade, but I cannot lock you because of a giant magic space beam, you get out of a killmail even though my group induced you to explode. This ability to avoid a killmail adds nothing to the game. There is no reason that the game is better because it exists. In fact, all the same reasons the self-destruct mechanics were changed in Inferno still apply. There is nothing unique about this situation that merits a special rule, and while we might have had a special rule for the last few years because of how POSes worked, there is no reason that should continue.

As for bumping out of tethering range, wasn't the plan to include an anti-bumping effect for tethered ships? Did CCP give up on that? If so, that is already a change from the POS situation that you two are holding up as some sort of gospel that must be forever maintained just because it was once so. That said, I am still pretty sure CCP still plans to implement an effect that prevents bumping of tethered ships before they completely remove POSes. Maybe that would be a good time to add the tether shut-off for a self-destructing ship?

Whatever, I don't care. The ship is lost either way and while I love a killmail as much as the next guy, they really don't have much concrete meaning in the game beyond an imperfect source of intel and bragging rights. The OP is correct however that this isn't how killmails work everywhere else, and more importantly, there is no good reason why ships tethered to structures (or inside POSes) should have some special exemption. Any such exemption was just a side-effect of how POS shields worked, and if we can improve the consistency of killmails by just having the tether turn off when the destruct sequence starts, I am all for it.



well it does add something to the game and it does not have the same effect your post showing how little you care is proof of that
Black Pedro
Mine.
#37 - 2017-01-30 13:07:33 UTC
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
well it does add something to the game and it does not have the same effect your post showing how little you care is proof of that
Does it? What does it add?

I would be happy to reconsider my view on this non-issue if you could give me a clear reason how this loophole makes for better game play beyond 'it is like this in POSes'. Otherwise, I will stand by my position that this is an inconsistent, but low-priority, issue with how killmails are generated in this game.
Althalus Stenory
Flying Blacksmiths
#38 - 2017-01-30 13:16:27 UTC
About the point "should the defender be able to self destruct, to deny its assets", he should and it doesn't' matter if it's by self destruct or leaving its assets to the asset safety system (also denying any loot to people killing the citadel). You also can do it in POS or in a safe somewhere.
He'd put everything in its hangar, undocking. After that it's just a matter of "suicide" or "getting killed". Both will give insurance, both will deny any isk (except useless bounty if applicable) to the attacker. So I don't see any problem self destructing while tethered.

Should the self destruct generate a killmail, it's another story. Even if I don't really care about killmails, it should generate one, the same way it happens when you get killed by NPC (without any player actions). Everything in the game generate a killmail when you lose a ship, except self destruct, so why not ?

EsiPy - Python 2.7 / 3.3+ Swagger Client based on pyswagger for ESI

Donnachadh
United Allegiance of Undesirables
#39 - 2017-01-30 14:41:36 UTC
Natural CloneKiller wrote:
Eviction was real. Just saying if someone self destructs in a worm hole to me I should be able to shoot the guy.

You can shoot the guy, if you can find him and catch him, you cannot shoot his tethered ship, huge difference.

Black Pedro wrote:
There is absolutely no reason why a tether should not just shut-off when you start a self-destruct sequence so the opposing fleet can help send your ship on its way to Valhalla.

And there is no reason why a tether should shut off simply because you start the self destruct sequence.

One has to ask if this whole process of being able to self destruct a ship while it sits in perfect safety somewhere is such an issue to you why have we not heard or seen you complain about people doing it inside POS shield?
Or is there some space magic difference between doing it inside a POS shield that makes it OK but doing it while tethered is not.


Black Pedro
Mine.
#40 - 2017-01-30 15:07:37 UTC
Donnachadh wrote:
And there is no reason why a tether should shut off simply because you start the self destruct sequence.
Yes there is. It would allow players blockading the structure to shoot the ship and generate a killmail. Such an outcome provides a better description of that player encounter than no killmail. Killmails are generated for almost everything else, so they should be generated when other players force you to explode your ship. It's why they changed the whole self-destruct mechanic back in Inferno to stop people from self-destructing and avoiding a killmail and the same reasons apply today.

Donnachadh wrote:
One has to ask if this whole process of being able to self destruct a ship while it sits in perfect safety somewhere is such an issue to you why have we not heard or seen you complain about people doing it inside POS shield?
Or is there some space magic difference between doing it inside a POS shield that makes it OK but doing it while tethered is not.
It's not ok in a POS, but there is no clear and simple fix to that situation (nor is it very important or worth wasting developer time on fixing since it is just a meaningless killmail). But on a tether? You just make it turn off when the destruct sequence starts. Simple.

I have asked in every one of my posts this question, and I'll do it again: why should the tether protect someone self-destructing? How is that better for the game? What amazing game play are you all trying to protect that compels you to defend the status quo on these forums but yet seem unable to articulate to me?

I see no reason why such protection should be maintained other than that is/was the way it is with POSes. That isn't a good reason people. If there is a simple fix that would generate more accurate, consistent killmails recording player encounters, why not implement it? Who would be hurt by that?

I sense a lot of fear of killmails or maybe just fear of change in this thread. You all need to HTFU - they are just killmails.


Previous page123Next page