Assembly Hall

Lol@ PL calling it "grief."

Self destruct is intended to deny you loot and km. If you're mad, it's working as intended.

Goose99, repeating himself over and over since 2010.

Please, for the love of chribba, try coming up with a coherent argument for or against this proposal. Then post it. Then apply this strategy to every single other thread you ever post in.

The self destruct timer is long for a reason. If you cannot kill a target within 2 minutes, then you lose your chance at a KM. Additionally, KMs are not an important part of EVE, they are important for sites like BC who help people with nothing better to do feel good about destroying internet spaceship pixels.

KMs are working as intended - if you can't get them in 2 minutes, then you don't deserve that kill.

A small concession that might be reasonable, however - if you choose to activate the self destruct timer, then all your modules finish their cycle and power down, with the exception of guns. You can die guns blazing, having no boosters should help you die faster which will appease some of the butt-hurt from 12 year olds that don't have their KM that's been posted in this thread, and we don't need to **** with the timer.

Now i readily admit i have never ever attempted to kill a capital ship. Simi makes a few good points but like many arguments respectfully submitted, seems to discount any perspective that does not serve his specific interest. Knowing i could be wrong i'd venture a guess that many many more players have killed or been killed in non-capital ships then capital ships. Thus to make an argument that would apply a new standard to all for the benefit of a minority seems incorrect and honestly somewhat overly self centered.
As far as the ability to determine a player's skills from killmails, when you make that case you also make the opposite case. You have no idea how many times i might have self destructed or what kind of ships i fly or anything about how up to scratch my engineering skills may or may not be, and i might tactically very well want and need to keep you an others in the dark about those specific facts as long as possible.
Many have made good cases in this thread and i think the reasonable conclusion is if CCP chooses to adjust this at all a one size fits all solution will be a poor choice.
I think a player should maintain the right to self destruct and deny his opponent a killmail, cargo, and modules if his ship could otherwise reasonably be killed within the self destruct time period. Player choices, player skills, and player tactics should not be undermined by the never ending lust for guaranteed killmails. Power to the Players!

I don't fly Minmatar ......... and the rest of your assumptions are equally accurate.
I do fly, like the majority of players in EVE, ships you find inconsequential ..... until we have you scrambled in your big important ship that can't track fast enough to blast us.
Enough of trying to rig the rules so the "Important Ships and Pilots" can have more and more and more. This thread has had good exchanges and a reasonable consensus could be achieved if people did not find the game play of other players ..... inconsequential. EVE is for ALL the players. Power to the players!

#1 I was responding to your response which featured my posted comments. If you mistakenly thought or assumed I was alt of someone else simply highlights why players should not put so much faith in kill board posts.

#2 On capital ships you have a reasonable position, two minutes might indeed be too short ...... or the game might be designed with the intent that a smaller sized gang CAN NOT defeat every target they can sink their teeth into. Perhaps instead of changing the self destruct rules you should organize larger gangs capable of killing whatever your target is in under two minutes. If that is impossible, and surely it is not with a big enough blob, then and only then do you have a legitimate argument. In my humble inconsequential opinion.

#3 You could not accurately say anything about my character because you did not blow him up, and if i choose to employ the tactic of self destruction you still would not have blown him up. What makes you think you have the right to know facts you haven't earned by executing a tactical kill? I don't mean this in a bad way but it sounds like you feel entitled to unearned benefits because that information has value to you.

#4 The fact that you can not tell anything about what this character flies and where my skills are PROVE my point that players have the right to tactically avoid making those facts easily accessible for every other pilot and self destruct can enable that tactic.

#5 EVE is supposed to be about risk and reward ..... in these forum posts i read a lot about how to guarantee rewards and very little about balancing it with more risk. Right now an attacking gang gets to pick the target, gets to pick the place, gets to pick the time of any attack they engage in, how much more advantage do you require we rig the rules to give you?

#6 I have certainly learned to defer to the greater skill and experience level of many players posting in these forum threads, having repeatedly inserted my foot into my mouth due to insufficient knowledge of how many aspects of the game unknown to me are played, that being said I find less and less merit to an argument that sounds more and more like crying about the ones that can get away, just because you don't like them to be able to employ a legitimate tactic.

Please if you think it worth while post something consequentially material that will convince me of the merit of your argument that would make taking away a tactical tool from other players to enable your felling of entitlement to the benefit you perceive it grants you, while doing nothing to enhance the risk versus reward foundational basis of EVE gameplay. Sometimes i am a little slow but a solid logic based argument can persuade me, thus far while you make several good smaller points your main point is inadequate to justify taking a tactic away from some to give unearned benefit to others. Power to the players!

#1 Thank you for the specific responses.

#2 Just because you say i am a forum alt in bold underlined letters does not make it so.

#3 Boring and dissatisfying? Where in the EVE EULA does it state you are guaranteed that individual player choices will make you less bored and more satisfied? Your feeling of entitlement is showing, or at least i think that is what it is, i can not read your mind or fairly make a conclusive statement about your mindset from these few posts, thus i can only say what it "sounds like" from my perspective.

#4 Mass self destruction on a scale you are talking about happens how often? Often enough to rig the rules to make it impossible becomes a priority?

#5 The seeming need to enhance attacks in a game that is balanced already in an extremely lopsided manner in favor of the attacker while hiding behind insubstantial quotes of "playing EVE wrong" or "reckless behavior" is the only way you end up dead is really unworthy of these forums, in my opinion.

Player choices are preferable to me then setting the rules to rigidly enforce gameplay that benefits a few and effects many. Power to the Players!

tldr

A carrier should be able to tank a ship thats inappropriate. I.e. a rifter ? ... however if a ship can break another ships tank then the conclusion should be inevitable.
i believe a killmail would be just even after a self destruct. The mechanic is mis-used and you are clearly not a pvp'er hence it doesn't bother you. Either that or your main is a pilot who flies in large gangs and likes to orbit an 'anchor' whilst finding primaries to activate modules on.

Please consider the other end of the scale, us who wish to take on larger fleets with smaller gangs. PVP is what this game is about and although you might not like it, PVP involves shooting and destroying space ships. Its dis-heartening after spending say 10minutes taking a cap into low armour only for it to then disappear.

I agree that loot should be destroyed upon self destruct.
I don't think insurance should pay out upon self destruct.
I do think if aggressed by something and self destructing a loss mail should be created.






+1

That scale may not be the most common of occurrences, but the more common occurence is like what we saw on saturday, where a few NCdot pilots in drakes (drakes) who escaped a gatecamp, safed up, selfdestructed and smugged in local about how his kill/death ratio was intact. Instead of forming a proper gang to smash the gatecampers.

Doesn't change the fact that a dread fleet has done it, simply because they fear their kill/death ratio won't be elite enough.

Might as well just give it to the one with the most damage. Consistency is a good thing.


The whole argument about "it'd deny intel" is complete bunk. Nobody has suicided to avoid leaking TOP SEKRIT FIT INFO, because there are no robot jesus fits, the worst that happens is that people point and laugh a bit at the price or general awfulness of said fit.


Not a problem, if the SD timer has run its course.


I see absolutely no reason to pay out if you selfdestruct. In fact, this would be pretty paramount in any changes I'd implement regarding selfdestruction, simply because I want to remove as many incentives to avoiding or pussying out of fighting as hard as you can when you're cornered, as possible.