These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Assembly Hall

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Self-destructing reworked

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Gypsio III
Questionable Ethics.
Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
#101 - 2012-01-07 17:28:07 UTC
Vertisce Soritenshi wrote:
I disagree with generating a killmail simply on the fact that in order to do so you will have to give credit to someone who didn't "actually" kill anything.


This doesn't make any sense. The only reason to self-destruct in combat is because you know that you're going to die. This means that you have decided that your death is inevitable, meaning that activating S-D is, effectively, crediting your opponents with an inevitable kill. So it's entirely appropriate that S-D should generate a killmail if other parties were involved, presumably measured by an active aggression timer.

The purpose of S-D is to deny your opponent loot and, arguably, ship fitting information. Both of these should remain, the latter simply by generating a killmail and lossmail containing no module information and with an extra message stating that the ship self-destructed.
Temba Ronin
#102 - 2012-01-07 17:52:56 UTC
Gypsio III wrote:
Vertisce Soritenshi wrote:
I disagree with generating a killmail simply on the fact that in order to do so you will have to give credit to someone who didn't "actually" kill anything.


This doesn't make any sense. The only reason to self-destruct in combat is because you know that you're going to die. This means that you have decided that your death is inevitable, meaning that activating S-D is, effectively, crediting your opponents with an inevitable kill. So it's entirely appropriate that S-D should generate a killmail if other parties were involved, presumably measured by an active aggression timer.

The purpose of S-D is to deny your opponent loot and, arguably, ship fitting information. Both of these should remain, the latter simply by generating a killmail and lossmail containing no module information and with an extra message stating that the ship self-destructed.

Okay first i readily admit i am no master of EVE game play. I would like to propose as a possible middle ground position in this get a killmail for not actually killing anything argument this compromise: If any aggressed ship chooses to sd the ship having done the most damage shall receive a killmail, now the offer in kind is that any ship that is concorded after aggressing any other ship shall also generate a killmail for the owner of the ship he attacked and was concorded for. In essence sd will generate a killmail for the attacking pilot, gank will generate a killmail for the attacked pilot if the attacker is destroyed by concord.

Sometimes you have to give to get, thus i am suggesting some give on both sides for some get on both sides without implying that both are of equal value. All thoughts thumbs up or down are appreciated.

The Best Ship In EVE Online Is "Friendship", Power To The Players!
Mystical Might
Eclipse Pulsar
Fraternity.
#103 - 2012-01-07 22:30:15 UTC
Suppppppoooooorrrrrrtttttteeeeeedddddd.
Katie Frost
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#104 - 2012-01-08 03:38:36 UTC
Smiling Menace wrote:
Vertisce Soritenshi wrote:
I disagree with generating a killmail simply on the fact that in order to do so you will have to give credit to someone who didn't "actually" kill anything. The ship self destructed. What I would agree to is increasing the time it takes to self destruct and prevent the self destructing ship from being able to target anything and from using modules to avoid abusing that. Maybe make the self destruct timer based on the ships size. The whole point to self destruct is to deny your enemy the satisfaction of a kill. There is no other point in EvE for self destruct other than that right now. 5 minutes or so on self destruct for capitals (as they are really the only issue here) sounds about reasonable.

I do agree that self destructing ships should NOT pay out insurance.


Agree with this.

Why should you get a KM if you didn't actually kill the ship?


This depends entirely on your definition of "kill" when a self-destruct is involved. You could argue that you did not lay the final blow to the SD-ed ship but since the ship is destroyed and your were involved in its destruction - you indeed committed a kill.
Jalmari Huitsikko
Avanto
Hole Control
#105 - 2012-01-08 12:35:34 UTC  |  Edited by: Jalmari Huitsikko
no insurance for selfdestruct

otherwise i don't care

it just doesnt make sense someone pays you for destroying your own ship it's dumb

wormhole guys can still exploit insurance bullshit by shooting their corp mates rorquals
Simi Kusoni
HelloKittyFanclub
#106 - 2012-01-08 17:23:43 UTC
Temba Ronin wrote:
Okay first i readily admit i am no master of EVE game play. I would like to propose as a possible middle ground position in this get a killmail for not actually killing anything argument this compromise: If any aggressed ship chooses to sd the ship having done the most damage shall receive a killmail, now the offer in kind is that any ship that is concorded after aggressing any other ship shall also generate a killmail for the owner of the ship he attacked and was concorded for. In essence sd will generate a killmail for the attacking pilot, gank will generate a killmail for the attacked pilot if the attacker is destroyed by concord.

Sometimes you have to give to get, thus i am suggesting some give on both sides for some get on both sides without implying that both are of equal value. All thoughts thumbs up or down are appreciated.

Except these are two completely different issues, and so as invaluable as I'm sure your support is I don't feel particularly obliged to "trade" you anything for it. If you wish to propose KMs given to the victims of concorded ships, do so in another thread.

This thread is not about suicide ganking, hell, it isn't even about high sec since very few ships big enough to SD in a (normal) fight are allowed to fly in high sec.

[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]
Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#107 - 2012-01-08 19:01:18 UTC
If someone getting suicided wants killmails, all they have to do is aggress the guy. Downside to that is, however, that they lose their killright. vOv

Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home.

RIP Vile Rat
firewalker220
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#108 - 2012-01-11 23:53:52 UTC
+1 Please make this happen.
Zloco Crendraven
BALKAN EXPRESS
Shadow Cartel
#109 - 2012-01-11 23:58:42 UTC
+1 very good

BALEX, bringing piracy on a whole new level.
Il Feytid
State War Academy
Caldari State
#110 - 2012-01-12 00:09:06 UTC  |  Edited by: Il Feytid
Just want to toss in this:

Just like a cyno can not be activated in a POS shield; self destruct should not be allowed to be activated and when entering will be cancelled in a POS force field.

The main reason for this is unknown space. Invaders successfully defeat an inhabitant only to watch as one of the main reasons for the attack is just self destructed over and over leaving nothing to be looted. A change like I said above would encourage more reasons to pew pew in unknown space.
CraftyCroc
Fraternity Alliance Please Ignore
#111 - 2012-01-12 00:29:19 UTC
Signed


CCP Soundwave wrote:
May look into this in the future. Killmails you should certainly get.



I was of the view loot should drop but reading on the matter and further thought has lead me to believe self destruct should destroy loot - but also insurance should be voided. If i called my insurance company and said I'd blown up my car they would tell me too **** off.

As for killmails. These should defiantly be generated.... SD is used to prevent loss mails and this is flawed.
suptrader
suptrader Corp
#112 - 2012-01-12 00:47:38 UTC
+1
Zarak1 Kenpach1
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#113 - 2012-01-12 02:30:53 UTC
Aamrr wrote:
Just a voice of consideration. Denying insurance payouts to self-destructing ships has a very real effect on wormhole space. Sometimes self-destructing isn't really voluntary...

I generally agree with the thread, otherwise.


can you give an example please?
Simi Kusoni
HelloKittyFanclub
#114 - 2012-01-12 02:36:42 UTC
Zarak1 Kenpach1 wrote:
Aamrr wrote:
Just a voice of consideration. Denying insurance payouts to self-destructing ships has a very real effect on wormhole space. Sometimes self-destructing isn't really voluntary...

I generally agree with the thread, otherwise.


can you give an example please?

I'm presuming he means when you move out, and cannot take your ships with you. This could be overcome by destroying it with an alt, and not posting the KMs. But it's boring.

No insurance payout for self destructing ships if they have aggression? Would seem to solve that issue.

[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]
Skippidipp
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#115 - 2012-01-13 02:40:21 UTC
+1

This really needs a look at. What are we still doing with a game mechanic that should have been changed when capitals was introduced??

If some ideas are needed, make a new EMP module that fries the circuits of the ship and cancels the self destruct. Module should be hig slot, and usable by all types of ships.

Or make it simple. Aggression = no self destruct
Scrapyard Bob
EVE University
Ivy League
#116 - 2012-01-13 03:11:11 UTC
Skippidipp wrote:

Or make it simple. Aggression = no self destruct


Which runs into the problem of - you get aggressed in a ship/pod, away from a gate, the attacker decides to just hold you there in place for an hour or two. Self-destruction is a legitimate way of saying "screw you, I'm not going to play your game".

Now, if you want to make it that you can't self destruct if you have an active outbound 15-minute aggression timer, then maybe. But I would put the timer at more like 5-minutes before you can start the self-destruct timer, with the larger ships having timers up to 5-7 minutes long. Which would definitively end combat, at most, 10-12 minutes after the victim decides to "check out".
Skippidipp
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#117 - 2012-01-13 07:41:26 UTC
Scrapyard Bob wrote:
Skippidipp wrote:

Or make it simple. Aggression = no self destruct


Which runs into the problem of - you get aggressed in a ship/pod, away from a gate, the attacker decides to just hold you there in place for an hour or two. Self-destruction is a legitimate way of saying "screw you, I'm not going to play your game".

Now, if you want to make it that you can't self destruct if you have an active outbound 15-minute aggression timer, then maybe. But I would put the timer at more like 5-minutes before you can start the self-destruct timer, with the larger ships having timers up to 5-7 minutes long. Which would definitively end combat, at most, 10-12 minutes after the victim decides to "check out".



Than make the pod an exception. So yea, if you are in a ship they can hold you until you eject, or shot you. But in pod, you can self destruct as normal. Problem solved.
Simi Kusoni
HelloKittyFanclub
#118 - 2012-01-13 07:45:02 UTC
Skippidipp wrote:
Scrapyard Bob wrote:
Skippidipp wrote:

Or make it simple. Aggression = no self destruct


Which runs into the problem of - you get aggressed in a ship/pod, away from a gate, the attacker decides to just hold you there in place for an hour or two. Self-destruction is a legitimate way of saying "screw you, I'm not going to play your game".

Now, if you want to make it that you can't self destruct if you have an active outbound 15-minute aggression timer, then maybe. But I would put the timer at more like 5-minutes before you can start the self-destruct timer, with the larger ships having timers up to 5-7 minutes long. Which would definitively end combat, at most, 10-12 minutes after the victim decides to "check out".



Than make the pod an exception. So yea, if you are in a ship they can hold you until you eject, or shot you. But in pod, you can self destruct as normal. Problem solved.

Personally I'd rather not just be held in space until I eject from my ship because my would-be-killer wants a new T3 Lol

Extending timers to a sensible length, fine. Getting rid of them completely is just asking for it to be abused. Although I do want a new T3...

[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]
Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#119 - 2012-01-13 11:40:56 UTC
If you're self destructing and you're aggressed, produce killmail. If the self destruct mechanism is activated when your ship goes pop (be it through the self destruct timer or the other guy shooting you dead), no insurance payout.

Fight it out like a man or get pussywhipped like the pussy you are.

Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home.

RIP Vile Rat
Kwashi
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#120 - 2012-01-13 12:15:30 UTC
Zarak1 Kenpach1 wrote:
Aamrr wrote:
Just a voice of consideration. Denying insurance payouts to self-destructing ships has a very real effect on wormhole space. Sometimes self-destructing isn't really voluntary...

I generally agree with the thread, otherwise.


can you give an example please?

Ship marooned without probes due to crashing accident or enemy trickery comes to mind.



Not sure that kind of situation represents a "very real effect" compared to the much more common use of this mechanic in wormspace - i.e. torching one's own hardware to keep one's lossboard clean when one is losing a battle. Generation of mails only for SD while under 15min combat timer seems reasonable to me.