These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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 page123
 

Self destruct capitals on citadels is wrong

Author
Serendipity Lost
Repo Industries
#41 - 2017-01-30 17:31:29 UTC
I think at the end of the day it's pretty clear. If I bought or built the ship - it's mine. I can do with it what I want. Denying some HS merc a km by self destructing while tethered is one of the options available. The ship doesn't in any way belong to the sieging group. To be totally honest - the SD of 10 caps has gotten A LOT more mileage for the OWNERS of the ships than yoloing them ever would have. Just look at the wonderful tears and forum content being generated long after the ships have been gone.

SDing is a totally legit (as profoundly demonstrated by these copious thread tears) option. Removing the tethered SD option would be just one more nerf to healthy game play. The point of sieging a wh is to inflict a sense of pain and loss. The point of tethered SD of 10 capitals is to inflect a sense of pain and loss. The only difference is which side of the fight you are on.

Can't we just celebrate that content and player interaction was had and not quibble like children over petty details??

Lugh Crow-Slave
#42 - 2017-01-30 17:59:26 UTC
Serendipity Lost wrote:

Can't we just celebrate that content and player interaction was had and not quibble like children over petty details??





... what... what do you expect me to do with my day thenSad
Danika Princip
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#43 - 2017-01-30 18:40:14 UTC
Black Pedro wrote:
You all need to HTFU - they are just killmails.



This statement applies equally well to everything you have said too.

Why does it matter if a killmail is generated? The ship is dead, the eviction was a success. Why does the killmail matter?

I am fast coming around to the 'remove all killmails' point of view thanks to threads like this.
Serendipity Lost
Repo Industries
#44 - 2017-01-30 18:47:40 UTC
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
Serendipity Lost wrote:

Can't we just celebrate that content and player interaction was had and not quibble like children over petty details??





... what... what do you expect me to do with my day thenSad



T.Swift 1 minute challenge??
Black Pedro
Mine.
#45 - 2017-01-30 19:10:12 UTC
Danika Princip wrote:
Black Pedro wrote:
You all need to HTFU - they are just killmails.



This statement applies equally well to everything you have said too.

Why does it matter if a killmail is generated? The ship is dead, the eviction was a success. Why does the killmail matter?

I am fast coming around to the 'remove all killmails' point of view thanks to threads like this.

I know, it was irony.

It doesn't matter. Not even in the slightest. Yet the avalanche of HTFU and harumphing that went on in this thread directed at the OP because he dared suggest some killmails should be generated that weren't was unbelievable. As was the inability of anyone to justify why the game would somehow be better if people kept the right to self-destruct things to avoid appear on a killmail despite all their tsk-tsk-ing.

If it takes CCP more than a handful of developer hours to change this they shouldn't do it. It is inconsequential. But if CCP has the chance to make killmails slightly more accurate and comprehensive now that tethering is replacing the POS spaghetti code, why not?

Killmails aren't totally without value though. Five years ago self-destruct-to-avoid-killmail was big enough an issue that CCP did something about it to near complete support of the player-base. However, the edge-case we are discussing here is not important. The fact is the vast majority of killmails are still generated, including one for the structure the OP was sieging.
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#46 - 2017-01-31 05:58:37 UTC
Black Pedro wrote:
Danika Princip wrote:
Black Pedro wrote:
You all need to HTFU - they are just killmails.



This statement applies equally well to everything you have said too.

Why does it matter if a killmail is generated? The ship is dead, the eviction was a success. Why does the killmail matter?

I am fast coming around to the 'remove all killmails' point of view thanks to threads like this.

I know, it was irony.

It doesn't matter. Not even in the slightest. Yet the avalanche of HTFU and harumphing that went on in this thread directed at the OP because he dared suggest some killmails should be generated that weren't was unbelievable. As was the inability of anyone to justify why the game would somehow be better if people kept the right to self-destruct things to avoid appear on a killmail despite all their tsk-tsk-ing.

If it takes CCP more than a handful of developer hours to change this they shouldn't do it. It is inconsequential. But if CCP has the chance to make killmails slightly more accurate and comprehensive now that tethering is replacing the POS spaghetti code, why not?

Killmails aren't totally without value though. Five years ago self-destruct-to-avoid-killmail was big enough an issue that CCP did something about it to near complete support of the player-base. However, the edge-case we are discussing here is not important. The fact is the vast majority of killmails are still generated, including one for the structure the OP was sieging.


I am fine with killmails.

I am also fine with people figuring out ways to deprive others of killmails or reducing the value of killmails. Part of the game, IMO.

"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

Previous page123