These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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 page12
 

Counter to self-destruct.
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Simi Kusoni
HelloKittyFanclub
#21 - 2012-01-15 23:40:11 UTC
muhadin wrote:
If they ever make it so you can prevent a self destruct, ill hold someone in a pod after i kill them in a sanctum or belt, and sit there for as long as i can, just to annoy the **** out of someone.

This, is why they haven't done it.

fortunately that's why most of us just want timers based on ship size :)

[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
#22 - 2012-01-15 23:42:02 UTC
I'd assume self destruct mechanisms in warships were pre-built into the hull itself, and once you set it off, it all goes at once.

The 2 minute timer is just to let you change your mind, or play selfdestruct chicken with your titan.

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

RIP Vile Rat
Aqriue
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#23 - 2012-01-16 21:25:04 UTC
Callous Jade wrote:

I think anyone with half a brain can see where the butthurt lies. Also pretty obvious which side of the self destruct you have found yourself on.

I was just throwing out an idea that popped into my head, sorry it made you so mad that you felt the need to rant on about hulks and other crap that is completely unrelated. Big smileBig smile

No, the butthurt is strong in you because everytime you felt cheated you run to the forums to suggest some fix to a non-issue.

You can't comprehend, that when you undock for a roam that your first assumption is

1)Fights at most will be 2 minutes long because of self destruct
2) I should have more numbers or have a cap ship on stand by just in case, but cap ship still self explodes in your face
3) Since OP fails to kill something inside 2 minutes, its not their fault and must run to the forums to cry like a baby but refuses to HTFU.

For the hulk drivers, they feel cheated when their ship is destroyed just as much as self destruction is to you.

1) I am in highsec, I should be fine. AFK
2) Ship goes all assplodey across the local asteroid belt
3) Hulk pilot runs to the forums to cry and get highsec safer, then is told its his fault for not watching local and HTFU.

Why is the hulk pilot at fault for undocking and exploding because he failed to watch local, but you are not at fault because you failed to bring more numbers yet EVERYONE KNOWS ITS 2 MINUTES BUT YOU FAILED TO PLAN FOR THAT CONTINGENCY!!!!

Ah, there is the conundrum.

1) You know self destruct is 2 minutes, but engage cap ships anyway and it self destructs.
2) Hulk pilot knows he is shootable at any time in highsec, but goes AFK and is destroyed.
3) Both are at fault.

(If one guy can plan to gank a hulk in under 30 seconds, you should be able to plan to destroy a ship in under 2 minutes just like gankers can)

Doesn't matter what the example is, use scam/corp spies/station trade, anything that you can think of and if you lose to that sitiuation then you are at fault. Get it? You know its 2 minutes, if you lose in that time scale, you are at fault for not planning around it.

Want to continue to ask CCP to fix your problems? Fine, lets ask CCP to fix self destruction but while we are at it lets make EVE less EVE and more like other MMO: No non-consent combat, protect assets so you don't actually lose them, scams that steal isk is a bannable offense. Yes, so if you are no longer at fault for your mistake (remember, your mistake was not having damage to reduce a ship to ash in 119 seconds) then CCP must fix every other "mistake" everyone else percieves from having their ship ganked, isk stolen, corp thieves stealing assets because you trusted them, because someone lost something and it couldn't possibly be their fault because they made a mistake like you. Yeah, less EVE were harsh is no longer harsh.
Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#24 - 2012-01-16 21:39:10 UTC
Going from "no killmail from selfdestruct" to "let's make less eve with no non-consent combat".

You're pretty special.

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

RIP Vile Rat
Robert Caldera
Caldera Trading and Investment
#25 - 2012-01-16 21:43:56 UTC
Callous Jade wrote:
Several very simple ways of eliminating those self-destructs that are used to escape a dire combat situation:

1. Have self destruct require capacitor.
- Would make neuts an even more important factor in the destruction of caps/supers/pimp rides.
- Makes sense as you would likely need some sort of power to initiate a self destruct sequence on a huge vessel.

2. Have the self destruct timer be reset by ewar.
- Would provide a viable counter for small gangs/solists to keep something on hand that keeps a superior vessel from destructing before help can arrive.
- Doesnt make as much sense as the neuting.

Both ways would still allow use of self destruct in a hopeless situation or one where the enemy was not well prepared.

Thoughts?


how is selfdestruct escape from something? last time I SD'd something it was, well, destructed!

what is this lately, a flood of stupid threads and whines in the f&I forums.
get out!
Previous page12