These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
12Next page
 

Change Capital Selfdestruct
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Skyreth
Victoria Per Conquestum
#1 - 2012-02-18 06:58:33 UTC
This is something that has been talked about several times, but I really think it is getting beyond stupid.

Capitals need to either have a longer self-destruct period OR still be counted towards losses/kills (perhaps the one with the highest DPS gets the killmail).

Makes catching a capital rather redundant when they just self-destruct.

Eve is a pvp game, so the idea is to kill and lose ships. If you don't want to lose ships, go here: http://www.barbie.com/

mxzf
Shovel Bros
#2 - 2012-02-18 07:00:40 UTC
Use search before posting.
Simi Kusoni
HelloKittyFanclub
#3 - 2012-02-18 07:04:12 UTC

[Insert same points/arguments I used in the last 5 threads here]

[center]"I don't troll, I just give overly blunt responses that annoy people who are wrong but don't want to admit it. It's not my fault that people have sensitive feelings"  -MXZF[/center]
Skyreth
Victoria Per Conquestum
#4 - 2012-02-18 07:27:58 UTC
I've posted in several threads with some of my accounts, but nothing ever happens. So what the heck, may as well start my own.
Nova Fox
Novafox Shipyards
#5 - 2012-02-18 07:34:17 UTC
I say give the pod pilot who successfuly self destruct his ship the kill mail.

Dust 514's CPM 1 Iron Wolf Saber Eve mail me about Dust 514 issues.
Simi Kusoni
HelloKittyFanclub
#6 - 2012-02-18 08:01:24 UTC
Skyreth wrote:
I've posted in several threads with some of my accounts, but nothing ever happens. So what the heck, may as well start my own.

My guess is that the code behind ship self destructs is pretty ancient, poorly documented and written when CCP first built Eve. Meaning that they're reluctant to mess with it without thorough testing.

Alternately, since it's CCP, they may just not check the forums. Or every dev team may think one of the other dev teams is working on it. Or they might just all be playing jenga at the moment, and they'll get round to it next year.

[center]"I don't troll, I just give overly blunt responses that annoy people who are wrong but don't want to admit it. It's not my fault that people have sensitive feelings"  -MXZF[/center]
Skyreth
Victoria Per Conquestum
#7 - 2012-02-18 08:14:55 UTC
Simi Kusoni wrote:
...... Or they might just all be playing jenga at the moment, and they'll get round to it next year.

Could be...
However it should be similar to people logging off in caps to avoid losses...The code for it should be just as ancient.
Aqriue
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#8 - 2012-02-18 15:59:40 UTC
Skyreth wrote:
Eve is a pvp game, so the idea is to kill and lose ships

Going to keep this brief this time, cause I am tired and can't come up with a new comedy skit to mock failure

EVE is a PVP game where HARSH actually has meaning on both sides of the playing field. SO STOP FAILING AND BRING MORE FIREPOWER! Its really that simple...undock...assume you have 2 minutes in any fight and its your responsiblity to win....results are dictated at the end of the match who is the winner....no killmail....you lost end of story.

And L2Search
Robert Caldera
Caldera Trading and Investment
#9 - 2012-02-18 18:31:30 UTC
selfdestruct is fine.
Tidurious
Blatant Alt Corp
#10 - 2012-02-18 23:20:17 UTC
Skyreth wrote:
This is something that has been talked about several times, but I really think it is getting beyond stupid.

...



No, the fact that butthurt pilots keep suggesting this every ******* day on the forums is that is beyond stupid. They lose the ship either way, so it's working as intended. There are NO IN-GAME consequences of SD except that loot doesn't drop, and SDing your ship to avoid dropping loot is perfectly valid.
Skyreth
Victoria Per Conquestum
#11 - 2012-02-19 00:24:42 UTC
Tidurious wrote:

No, the fact that butthurt pilots keep suggesting this every ******* day on the forums is that is beyond stupid. They lose the ship either way, so it's working as intended. There are NO IN-GAME consequences of SD except that loot doesn't drop, and SDing your ship to avoid dropping loot is perfectly valid.


There is no killmail. So the "There is no in-game consequences" line is crap...just saying.

As for those saying to get more firepower...not everyone is in a huge alliance. So you're all saying that a small corp or alliance that is lucky enough to catch a carrier has to magically come up with more firepower to take it down?...really?

This is the same as ships logging out and warping off to avoid losses. The funny thing is that the majority of people that say "get more firepower" are part of the larger alliances/corps, and the majority of people saying SDing is fine are the ones using it.
Simi Kusoni
HelloKittyFanclub
#12 - 2012-02-19 00:32:14 UTC
Tidurious wrote:
No, the fact that butthurt pilots keep suggesting this every ******* day on the forums is that is beyond stupid. They lose the ship either way, so it's working as intended. There are NO IN-GAME consequences of SD except that loot doesn't drop, and SDing your ship to avoid dropping loot is perfectly valid.

So why can't rifters or battle cruisers self destruct? If self destruct as a mechanic is working as intended, then by your logic it is currently unbalanced. Battle cruisers, frigates and cruisers should have their SD timers dramatically reduced.

[center]"I don't troll, I just give overly blunt responses that annoy people who are wrong but don't want to admit it. It's not my fault that people have sensitive feelings"  -MXZF[/center]
mxzf
Shovel Bros
#13 - 2012-02-19 02:37:23 UTC
Skyreth wrote:
Tidurious wrote:

No, the fact that butthurt pilots keep suggesting this every ******* day on the forums is that is beyond stupid. They lose the ship either way, so it's working as intended. There are NO IN-GAME consequences of SD except that loot doesn't drop, and SDing your ship to avoid dropping loot is perfectly valid.


There is no killmail. So the "There is no in-game consequences" line is crap...just saying.

As for those saying to get more firepower...not everyone is in a huge alliance. So you're all saying that a small corp or alliance that is lucky enough to catch a carrier has to magically come up with more firepower to take it down?...really?

This is the same as ships logging out and warping off to avoid losses. The funny thing is that the majority of people that say "get more firepower" are part of the larger alliances/corps, and the majority of people saying SDing is fine are the ones using it.



Lack of killmail isn't an in-game consequence, so his "There is no in-game consequences" is perfectly true.

And I'm not part of a larger alliance or corp, but I can still see that SDing is working as intended. Screwing an opponent over, by any means possible, is one of the core philosophies of Eve. Killmail denial is just one way of doing what you can to thumb your nose at your opponent.

If SDing needs nerfing because of the way that it 'hurts' the people who didn't manage to get the kill, then scamming should be removed because it hurts the people who lost their ISK and ganking needs nerfing because of the way it hurts the person that got ganked. KM denial, scamming, and ganking are all considered 'greifing' or 'dishonest' by some and are all valid parts of Eve. SDing does have one factor that isn't present in scamming or ganking though, the only thing that's 'hurt' is the pride of the parties that wanted the kill (and even then it's not a loss of pride, it's just a lack of gain).

So just shut up already about suiciding, it's been discussed to death and it's old.
Skyreth
Victoria Per Conquestum
#14 - 2012-02-19 02:52:46 UTC  |  Edited by: Skyreth
mxzf wrote:
Lack of killmail isn't an in-game consequence, so his "There is no in-game consequences" is perfectly true.

And I'm not part of a larger alliance or corp, but I can still see that SDing is working as intended. Screwing an opponent over, by any means possible, is one of the core philosophies of Eve. Killmail denial is just one way of doing what you can to thumb your nose at your opponent.

If SDing needs nerfing because of the way that it 'hurts' the people who didn't manage to get the kill, then scamming should be removed because it hurts the people who lost their ISK and ganking needs nerfing because of the way it hurts the person that got ganked. KM denial, scamming, and ganking are all considered 'greifing' or 'dishonest' by some and are all valid parts of Eve. SDing does have one factor that isn't present in scamming or ganking though, the only thing that's 'hurt' is the pride of the parties that wanted the kill (and even then it's not a loss of pride, it's just a lack of gain).

So just shut up already about suiciding, it's been discussed to death and it's old.


Remember having the ability to log out so your cap would vanish and therefor allow you to escape without a loss? Effectively the same thing there. So by your thinking, guess we should bring log-out saves back?

I'm in no way saying that it should be taken out, far from it. But there should be a way to counter it, at the very least. Even if its an expensive new ECM module that shuts down or extends the SD process.

Sding has its uses, but it is completely overused these days. It's replaced the log-out saves and is just as bad.

Also, all the situations you listed can be countered. To counter being ganked, keep an eye on local and make sure you're fitted properly (or travel with other pilots). Scamming, read the contracts carefully. Every situation has a counter, SD should have one too.

Edit: I mean a counter that can be used by any/all corps and alliances, no matter size. And if this topic makes you rage as much as it seems to, then don't read it and leave the thread to constructive posting.
Tidurious
Blatant Alt Corp
#15 - 2012-02-19 03:37:00 UTC
Skyreth wrote:
mxzf wrote:
Lack of killmail isn't an in-game consequence, so his "There is no in-game consequences" is perfectly true.

And I'm not part of a larger alliance or corp, but I can still see that SDing is working as intended. Screwing an opponent over, by any means possible, is one of the core philosophies of Eve. Killmail denial is just one way of doing what you can to thumb your nose at your opponent.

If SDing needs nerfing because of the way that it 'hurts' the people who didn't manage to get the kill, then scamming should be removed because it hurts the people who lost their ISK and ganking needs nerfing because of the way it hurts the person that got ganked. KM denial, scamming, and ganking are all considered 'greifing' or 'dishonest' by some and are all valid parts of Eve. SDing does have one factor that isn't present in scamming or ganking though, the only thing that's 'hurt' is the pride of the parties that wanted the kill (and even then it's not a loss of pride, it's just a lack of gain).

So just shut up already about suiciding, it's been discussed to death and it's old.


Remember having the ability to log out so your cap would vanish and therefor allow you to escape without a loss? Effectively the same thing there. So by your thinking, guess we should bring log-out saves back?

I'm in no way saying that it should be taken out, far from it. But there should be a way to counter it, at the very least. Even if its an expensive new ECM module that shuts down or extends the SD process.

Sding has its uses, but it is completely overused these days. It's replaced the log-out saves and is just as bad.

Also, all the situations you listed can be countered. To counter being ganked, keep an eye on local and make sure you're fitted properly (or travel with other pilots). Scamming, read the contracts carefully. Every situation has a counter, SD should have one too.

Edit: I mean a counter that can be used by any/all corps and alliances, no matter size. And if this topic makes you rage as much as it seems to, then don't read it and leave the thread to constructive posting.



Not the same at all. When you SD, you still lose your ship! That is the entire point - they lost their ship one way or the other, no matter who laid the final blow, so to speak.

You wanted to kill their ship, their ship is now dead whether they SD'd or not. Therefore, working as intended.
mxzf
Shovel Bros
#16 - 2012-02-19 03:52:16 UTC
Skyreth wrote:
Remember having the ability to log out so your cap would vanish and therefor allow you to escape without a loss? Effectively the same thing there. So by your thinking, guess we should bring log-out saves back?


lolwut? How is "I log out and my ship vanishes and I can keep it" anything at all like "I self destruct so that you don't get your epeen-boosting KM but I don't have my ship either"? They're completely the opposite from each other, the only similarity is lack of a KM at the end of the day.

Skyreth wrote:
Also, all the situations you listed can be countered. To counter being ganked, keep an eye on local and make sure you're fitted properly (or travel with other pilots). Scamming, read the contracts carefully. Every situation has a counter, SD should have one too.


Yes, self destructing does have a counter, it's called "kill it before it self destructs". If you are incapable to do so (due to forgetting the "massively multiplayer" part of Eve being an MMO or due to your friends' lack of coordination), that's your fault. Don't expect CCP to hold your hand due to your inability to succeed at the game.
Skyreth
Victoria Per Conquestum
#17 - 2012-02-19 04:17:57 UTC
Ok, log-out saves and SDing both create no loss mail and no kill mail. And the "applying more damage" answer you have mxzf can be applied to BOTH situations. If you could get enough damage on a log-out character fast enough, you could blow them up before they vanished. Same situation here with SDing, yet SDing has nothing beyond that.

And as for losing the ship, "Only fly what you can afford to lose" came about for a reason. If you're stupid enough to fly a cap whilst not be able to afford the loss, you deserve to get ganked. And it's not that hard to get the ISK to replace one to begin with.

Also, why make this personal? The fact that a pilot has to SD in the first place, kinda points to succeeding for putting them in that situation to begin with. Another point, saying I'm failing at EVE is rich coming from a 12 kills to 29 losses character.

If you need to play a game where you can escape from losing ships, I hear Star Trek Online is free-to-play now. Also, Hello Kitty is still an option if STO is too hard.

Side note: "kill it before [enter situation here]" applies to everything in EVE. But everything in EVE has counters beyond that. Keeping out of range, draining cap, locking up a target with ECM...hells, even log-outs can be countered with a scram/disruptor. It really isn't a major deal to have some form of alternative counter in place for SDs.
Simi Kusoni
HelloKittyFanclub
#18 - 2012-02-19 04:20:00 UTC  |  Edited by: Simi Kusoni
mxzf wrote:
Skyreth wrote:
Remember having the ability to log out so your cap would vanish and therefor allow you to escape without a loss? Effectively the same thing there. So by your thinking, guess we should bring log-out saves back?


lolwut? How is "I log out and my ship vanishes and I can keep it" anything at all like "I self destruct so that you don't get your epeen-boosting KM but I don't have my ship either"? They're completely the opposite from each other, the only similarity is lack of a KM at the end of the day.

Skyreth wrote:
Also, all the situations you listed can be countered. To counter being ganked, keep an eye on local and make sure you're fitted properly (or travel with other pilots). Scamming, read the contracts carefully. Every situation has a counter, SD should have one too.


Yes, self destructing does have a counter, it's called "kill it before it self destructs". If you are incapable to do so (due to forgetting the "massively multiplayer" part of Eve being an MMO or due to your friends' lack of coordination), that's your fault. Don't expect CCP to hold your hand due to your inability to succeed at the game.

That is all well and good when you are talking about ganking single targets, but as has been said before many times its unrealistic in capital ship fleet fights. Given that some alliances field 10-20 supers at a time, two minutes for super cap timers is a bit of a joke.

Even killing a single super in <2 minutes requires ~20 dreads, if it doesn't overheat. You can see how this timer negatively effects fleet engagements where logistics also come into play. As for kill mails not being a part of Eve, maybe someone should have let the dev team who just added implants to pods know that before they wasted all their time.

[center]"I don't troll, I just give overly blunt responses that annoy people who are wrong but don't want to admit it. It's not my fault that people have sensitive feelings"  -MXZF[/center]
Skyreth
Victoria Per Conquestum
#19 - 2012-02-19 04:26:00 UTC
Simi Kusoni wrote:
That is all well and good when you are talking about ganking single targets, but as has been said before many times its unrealistic in capital ship fleet fights. Given that some alliances field 10-20 supers at a time, two minutes for super cap timers is a bit of a joke.

Even killing a single super in <2 minutes requires ~20 dreads, if it doesn't overheat. You can see how this timer negatively effects fleet engagements where logistics also come into play. As for kill mails not being a part of Eve, maybe someone should have let the dev team who just added implants to pods know that before they wasted all their time.


Very good point. I was looking at it from a small gang vs capitals view. Have enough damage to kill the capital in a decent amount of time, but having the ship SD a second before they would have been dead.
However, you're point is far better and easier to see.
Aqriue
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#20 - 2012-02-19 21:41:05 UTC
Skyreth wrote:
As for those saying to get more firepower...not everyone is in a huge alliance. So you're all saying that a small corp or alliance that is lucky enough to catch a carrier has to magically come up with more firepower to take it down?...really?

This is the same as ships logging out and warping off to avoid losses. The funny thing is that the majority of people that say "get more firepower" are part of the larger alliances/corps, and the majority of people saying SDing is fine are the ones using it.

First paragraph
1. Do you climb a steep rock wall without safety gear? Yes. No. (probably not, cause you don't have the means to do it safely)

2. Do you engage a cap ship knowing you might not take it down? Yes. No. Maybe, cause you don't have to engage every ship you see if you can't kill it but you know you have 2 minutes total. Is it possible? Like above, you could climb a rock wall but if you think its not possible to do it safely...why would you climb the wall if you could get hurt? so in response, you shouldn't engage a ship just because it was on grid knowing you couldn't take it out in a quick and timely manner.

Second paragraph
1. Logging off, means it got away to fight another day. It avoided the loss, knowing it was going to lose and that you couldn't kill it. But that same ship can fight you again tommorrow.

2. Self Destruct....its gone. It needs to be replaced. That one ship, will not fight another day and another ship will have to take its place. HOW DOES IT GET AWAY?

So, how are consequences avoided? Your ego and puckering up your butthole in annoyance at failure is not an indication of the other pilot avoiding a consequence. The consequence of the ship self destructing...is your failure to do so and you getting mad.

Simi Kusoni wrote:
As for kill mails not being a part of Eve, maybe someone should have let the dev team who just added implants to pods know that before they wasted all their time.

Question: Why should you be awarded implants on a killmail? If you could destroy a pod before and you knew it might take implants with it or it might not actually have it, then everything is ok. If you couldn't bother to destroy a pod, because it wasn't really worth anything...then why add implants? Frankly, I belive if you can't be bothered to shoot a pod before the change then there is no damn reason award a bonus later.

And to bother dudes, KILLMAILS HAVE NOTHING TO DO ACTUAL IN GAME PLAY! Yes, thats right. You get a little note or you don't get it in you inbox doesn't change the fact: A ship is gone. You just like to measure youself up against other people because its imported to a killboard, which again I will tell you...IS PLAYER DRIVEN AND PLAYER SCORED! Since there is no official CCP board, self destruct doesn't matter! It just matters to you and how mad you get at your failure to achieve a lol-game score that means nothing in the real world....when in the grand scheme of thems its still 50/50 win/loss FOR EVERYBODY! Add it up..someone always loses and someone always wins.

Only reason I am against changes like self destruct is because it benifits you only and dumb down the game even more. I want you to try harder, not set it to Hello Kitty level...like me asking for a PVP flag so I can turn it off....what would you say? HTFU and try harder maybe? Ah...I see your true colors.

And BTW, who wouldn't want to screw over another player? Since there are no "honor" type games rules in EVE...I bet you would say yes. Forget the loss part, think about the gains someone might get and what would you do to prevent something that is so valuable to someone else that you can make them rage Oops

And sorry for the bump...just so many people obsessed over gamer scores as if it means something....FFS there are other things in life Roll
12Next page