Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Natural CloneKiller
The Phoenix Rising Vendetta Mercenary Group
337
|
Posted - 2017.01.27 09:04:36 -
[1] - Quote
We recently did a worm hole eviction and the owner of 10 capitals self destructed these on their citadel whilst being tethered. Please can this be reviewed by the community and by ccp. |
Van Doe
0
|
Posted - 2017.01.27 09:18:57 -
[2] - Quote
So? What's the problem? Recently I crashed a gate camp and came out on the other side.
print ("hello world")
|
Van Doe
0
|
Posted - 2017.01.27 09:23:04 -
[3] - Quote
The defender made it absolutely right. Even he lost he managed to control his loss.
print ("hello world")
|
Frostys Virpio
Yet another corpdot.
3061
|
Posted - 2017.01.27 14:06:56 -
[4] - Quote
Natural CloneKiller wrote:We recently did a worm hole eviction and the owner of 10 capitals self destructed these on their citadel whilst being tethered. Please can this be reviewed by the community and by ccp.
I fail to see a problem with that. Did it somehow prevent you from performing an eviction? |
Lugh Crow-Slave
3592
|
Posted - 2017.01.27 14:07:59 -
[5] - Quote
Enemy asset denial is an old and legitimate tactic
BLOPS Hauler
|
Danika Princip
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
5210
|
Posted - 2017.01.27 14:12:59 -
[6] - Quote
Please explain to the class why you feel that you are entitled to killmails, and that the owner of a ship should not be able to self destruct just to spite you.
The ship is dead either way, what difference does it make in the end? |
Lugh Crow-Slave
3592
|
Posted - 2017.01.27 14:14:37 -
[7] - Quote
Danika Princip wrote:Please explain to the class why you feel that you are entitled to killmails, and that the owner of a ship should not be able to self destruct just to spite you.
The ship is dead either way, what difference does it make in the end?
This is why I feel kill mails should just be removed
BLOPS Hauler
|
Donnachadh
United Allegiance of Undesirables
1150
|
Posted - 2017.01.27 14:16:23 -
[8] - Quote
Because you were able to evict them from the worm hole does not guarantee you the right to the kill mail for those ships. As Lugh Crow-Slave states asset denial (scorched earth) is one of the oldest tricks in the book and it is a valid game play option for all people and in all circumstances. |
Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local Break-A-Wish Foundation
4758
|
Posted - 2017.01.27 15:21:14 -
[9] - Quote
Frostys Virpio wrote:I fail to see a problem with that. Did it somehow prevent you from performing an eviction? Self destructing for the insurance money while totally invulnerable is as janky as all hell.
The tethering mechanic in general is as janky as all hell. Being able to use features of your ship normally while completely invulnerable to any kind of harm is not sensible game design. |
Frostys Virpio
Yet another corpdot.
3061
|
Posted - 2017.01.27 15:50:08 -
[10] - Quote
Vimsy Vortis wrote:Frostys Virpio wrote:I fail to see a problem with that. Did it somehow prevent you from performing an eviction? Self destructing for the insurance money while totally invulnerable is as janky as all hell. The tethering mechanic in general is as janky as all hell. Being able to use features of your ship normally while completely invulnerable to any kind of harm is not sensible game design.
Self destructing for insurance money or YOLOing for insurance money makes no difference. It's not like the invulnerability of the ship prevent it from exploding.
|
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
3596
|
Posted - 2017.01.27 16:31:31 -
[11] - Quote
Vimsy Vortis wrote:Frostys Virpio wrote:I fail to see a problem with that. Did it somehow prevent you from performing an eviction? Self destructing for the insurance money while totally invulnerable is as janky as all hell. The tethering mechanic in general is as janky as all hell. Being able to use features of your ship normally while completely invulnerable to any kind of harm is not sensible game design.
... but he would have got the insurance either way I think you are really starting to reach now
BLOPS Hauler
|
Lan Wang
Knights of the Posing Meat Snuffed Out
3889
|
Posted - 2017.01.27 16:39:25 -
[12] - Quote
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:Vimsy Vortis wrote:Frostys Virpio wrote:I fail to see a problem with that. Did it somehow prevent you from performing an eviction? Self destructing for the insurance money while totally invulnerable is as janky as all hell. The tethering mechanic in general is as janky as all hell. Being able to use features of your ship normally while completely invulnerable to any kind of harm is not sensible game design. ... but he would have got the insurance either way I think you are really starting to reach now
depends if they were insured in an npc station, either way the caps died the op's actions caused the target to suicide 10 caps, whats the issue here?
Alliance Logo Design Service
--
Domination Nephilim - Angel Cartel
|
Danika Princip
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
5210
|
Posted - 2017.01.27 17:05:30 -
[13] - Quote
Vimsy Vortis wrote:Frostys Virpio wrote:I fail to see a problem with that. Did it somehow prevent you from performing an eviction? Self destructing for the insurance money while totally invulnerable is as janky as all hell. The tethering mechanic in general is as janky as all hell. Being able to use features of your ship normally while completely invulnerable to any kind of harm is not sensible game design.
But using the self destruct feature does not affect anyone else in any way, shape or form. What's the problem here? |
Sonya Corvinus
Grant Village
999
|
Posted - 2017.01.28 11:53:28 -
[14] - Quote
Vimsy Vortis wrote:Self destructing for the insurance money while totally invulnerable is as janky as all hell.
The tethering mechanic in general is as janky as all hell. Being able to use features of your ship normally while completely invulnerable to any kind of harm is not sensible game design.
Why? In this scenario the occupants were still evicted, op successful. What's the problem? |
Donnachadh
United Allegiance of Undesirables
1152
|
Posted - 2017.01.28 15:59:07 -
[15] - Quote
Vimsy Vortis wrote:Frostys Virpio wrote:I fail to see a problem with that. Did it somehow prevent you from performing an eviction? Self destructing for the insurance money while totally invulnerable is as janky as all hell. The tethering mechanic in general is as janky as all hell. Being able to use features of your ship normally while completely invulnerable to any kind of harm is not sensible game design. And yet those "janky" mechanics did not protect the dweller, or prevent them from being evicted from the worm hole so how bad can they really be?
At the core this topic is nothing more than a whiny butt post about how someone robbed the OP of a kill mail they believe they "deserve" because eviction from worm hole. In reality what happened here was the OP was simply out thought and out played, the owner of those ships realized they were going to die any way so they retaliated in the only way they could in the situation they were faced with, they denied the OP and their group the nice fat juicy kill mails by self destructing those ships. |
Wolfgang Jannesen
The Evesploratory Society
6
|
Posted - 2017.01.28 16:03:14 -
[16] - Quote
You guys also talk like the insurance money you get back still isn't a huge loss. |
Cade Windstalker
722
|
Posted - 2017.01.28 16:39:51 -
[17] - Quote
So, correct me if I'm wrong here, but can't you do exactly the same thing with a POS?
Pretty sure you can and have been able to for literally a decade now. Citadels have changed literally nothing, though strictly speaking I guess they could have reprocessed those ships in the Citadel and had a chance at evacing the ore, so that's another way around feeding you Killmails or loot... |
Natural CloneKiller
The Phoenix Rising Vendetta Mercenary Group
340
|
Posted - 2017.01.28 18:56:31 -
[18] - Quote
Frostys Virpio wrote:Natural CloneKiller wrote:We recently did a worm hole eviction and the owner of 10 capitals self destructed these on their citadel whilst being tethered. Please can this be reviewed by the community and by ccp. I fail to see a problem with that. Did it somehow prevent you from performing an eviction?
Eviction was real. Just saying if someone self destructs in a worm hole to me I should be able to shoot the guy. |
Van Doe
6
|
Posted - 2017.01.28 20:24:45 -
[19] - Quote
Natural CloneKiller wrote:Frostys Virpio wrote:Natural CloneKiller wrote:We recently did a worm hole eviction and the owner of 10 capitals self destructed these on their citadel whilst being tethered. Please can this be reviewed by the community and by ccp. I fail to see a problem with that. Did it somehow prevent you from performing an eviction? Eviction was real. Just saying if someone self destructs in a worm hole to me I should be able to shoot the guy. Mimimi my kilboard minimi Mimimi I want easy/free kills mimimi Mimimi I want free loot mimimi
I'm not trolling, I create content for everyone to enjoy.
afk cloaky in a system near you while posting in this forum.
|
Teckos Pech
The Executives Executive Outcomes
5793
|
Posted - 2017.01.29 10:57:46 -
[20] - Quote
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:Danika Princip wrote:Please explain to the class why you feel that you are entitled to killmails, and that the owner of a ship should not be able to self destruct just to spite you.
The ship is dead either way, what difference does it make in the end? This is why I feel kill mails should just be removed
I don't mind kill mails. But this constant nonsense of making changes because of "but my kill mails!!!!" is more than a bit pathetic.
You won, stop being such a sore winner FFS.
"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
|
|
Frostys Virpio
Yet another corpdot.
3061
|
Posted - 2017.01.29 18:18:28 -
[21] - Quote
Natural CloneKiller wrote:Frostys Virpio wrote:Natural CloneKiller wrote:We recently did a worm hole eviction and the owner of 10 capitals self destructed these on their citadel whilst being tethered. Please can this be reviewed by the community and by ccp. I fail to see a problem with that. Did it somehow prevent you from performing an eviction? Eviction was real. Just saying if someone self destructs in a worm hole to me I should be able to shoot the guy.
Call the whaaaaambulance guys, this guy didn't get to shoot a few self-destructing caps. |
Kenrailae
Mind Games. Suddenly Spaceships.
717
|
Posted - 2017.01.29 19:05:40 -
[22] - Quote
HTFU.
The Law is a point of View
The NPE IS a big deal
|
Black Pedro
Yammerschooner
3079
|
Posted - 2017.01.29 20:03:27 -
[23] - Quote
No, the OP is right. A killmail should be generated that accurately reflects what takes place in the game and what you exploded whenever possible. Holes like yanking out implants or self-destructing ships behind a tether or POS should be plugged. There is absolutely no reason why a tether should not just shut-off when you start a self-destruct sequence so the opposing fleet can help send your ship on its way to Valhalla.
Now is this a big problem, or one that merits priority above all the other problems or inconsistencies in the game? Of course not. The accuracy of killmails is pretty far down the list given there is no real in game consequence to missing or inaccurate killmails. But on principle, the OP is correct that those ships exploded because of his group's superior play and thus there should be a record of it.
The 8 Golden Rules of Eve
Why Do They Gank?
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
3649
|
Posted - 2017.01.30 01:11:15 -
[24] - Quote
Black Pedro wrote:No, the OP is right. A killmail should be generated that accurately reflects what takes place in the game and what you exploded whenever possible. Holes like yanking out implants or self-destructing ships behind a tether or POS should be plugged. There is absolutely no reason why a tether should not just shut-off when you start a self-destruct sequence so the opposing fleet can help send your ship on its way to Valhalla.
Now is this a big problem, or one that merits priority above all the other problems or inconsistencies in the game? Of course not. The accuracy of killmails is pretty far down the list given there is no real in game consequence to missing or inaccurate killmails. But on principle, the OP is correct that those ships exploded because of his group's superior play and thus there should be a record of it.
KMs should be removed not made more accurate if anything these 'holes' are the only way to counter this massive system of free intel
BLOPS Hauler
|
Kenrailae
Mind Games. Suddenly Spaceships.
717
|
Posted - 2017.01.30 03:01:43 -
[25] - Quote
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:Black Pedro wrote:No, the OP is right. A killmail should be generated that accurately reflects what takes place in the game and what you exploded whenever possible. Holes like yanking out implants or self-destructing ships behind a tether or POS should be plugged. There is absolutely no reason why a tether should not just shut-off when you start a self-destruct sequence so the opposing fleet can help send your ship on its way to Valhalla.
Now is this a big problem, or one that merits priority above all the other problems or inconsistencies in the game? Of course not. The accuracy of killmails is pretty far down the list given there is no real in game consequence to missing or inaccurate killmails. But on principle, the OP is correct that those ships exploded because of his group's superior play and thus there should be a record of it. KMs should be removed not made more accurate if anything these 'holes' are the only way to counter this massive system of free intel
Nah.
But all the more power to someone using mechanics to screw attackers over with asset denial. That's Eve.
The Law is a point of View
The NPE IS a big deal
|
Black Pedro
Yammerschooner
3079
|
Posted - 2017.01.30 07:25:12 -
[26] - Quote
Kenrailae wrote:Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:Black Pedro wrote:No, the OP is right. A killmail should be generated that accurately reflects what takes place in the game and what you exploded whenever possible. Holes like yanking out implants or self-destructing ships behind a tether or POS should be plugged. There is absolutely no reason why a tether should not just shut-off when you start a self-destruct sequence so the opposing fleet can help send your ship on its way to Valhalla.
Now is this a big problem, or one that merits priority above all the other problems or inconsistencies in the game? Of course not. The accuracy of killmails is pretty far down the list given there is no real in game consequence to missing or inaccurate killmails. But on principle, the OP is correct that those ships exploded because of his group's superior play and thus there should be a record of it. KMs should be removed not made more accurate if anything these 'holes' are the only way to counter this massive system of free intel Nah. But all the more power to someone using mechanics to screw attackers over with asset denial. That's Eve. Asset denial is one thing. Cheesing the mechanics to not generate a killmail is another. There is a reason CCP turned off the ability to 'trash' items when a structure is reinforced to prevent exactly this petty game of denying an opponent credit or loot. If you beat another group you should be entitled to both the credit, and whatever loot the defenders cannot or will not save. You could still undock in a capital and self-destruct it to deny your opponent the asset.
Given CCP made attempts to prevent exactly this behaviour when implementing the new structures and this hole undermines that, and that there is no valid game reason to allow invulnerable self-destructs to complete under tether, I give the idea a +1. There is also not much of a real downside of the current status quo so I fully understand if CCP never gets around to fixing this. It seems simple enough though just to have the tether shut-off when the self-destruct sequence starts.
The 8 Golden Rules of Eve
Why Do They Gank?
|
Kenrailae
Mind Games. Suddenly Spaceships.
717
|
Posted - 2017.01.30 08:19:08 -
[27] - Quote
Black Pedro wrote:Asset denial is one thing. Cheesing the mechanics to not generate a killmail is another. There is a reason CCP turned off the ability to 'trash' items when a structure is reinforced to prevent exactly this petty game of denying an opponent credit or loot. If you beat another group you should be entitled to both the credit, and whatever loot the defenders cannot or will not save. You could still undock in a capital and self-destruct it to deny your opponent the asset.
Given CCP made attempts to prevent exactly this behaviour when implementing the new structures and this hole undermines that, and that there is no valid game reason to allow invulnerable self-destructs to complete under tether, I give the idea a +1. There is also not much of a real downside of the current status quo so I fully understand if CCP never gets around to fixing this. It seems simple enough though just to have the tether shut-off when the self-destruct sequence starts.
But it's okay to cheese them to get a killmail you shouldn't have gotten, right?
Nah, this is a fair use of the mechanic. -1
The Law is a point of View
The NPE IS a big deal
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
3653
|
Posted - 2017.01.30 08:37:36 -
[28] - Quote
Black Pedro wrote: Asset denial is one thing. Cheesing the mechanics to not generate a killmail is another. There is a reason CCP turned off the ability to 'trash' items when a structure is reinforced to prevent exactly this petty game of denying an opponent credit or loot. If you beat another group you should be entitled to both the credit,
1 cpp did that so you could not trash it all with the click of a button
2 this is eve if you think you are entitled to anything you're playing the wrong game
BLOPS Hauler
|
Black Pedro
Yammerschooner
3079
|
Posted - 2017.01.30 09:01:33 -
[29] - Quote
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:Black Pedro wrote: Asset denial is one thing. Cheesing the mechanics to not generate a killmail is another. There is a reason CCP turned off the ability to 'trash' items when a structure is reinforced to prevent exactly this petty game of denying an opponent credit or loot. If you beat another group you should be entitled to both the credit,
1 cpp did that so you could not trash it all with the click of a button 2 this is eve if you think you are entitled to anything you're playing the wrong game No, you are entitled to log into a playable server, and enjoy a consistent and logically implemented game. That is, of course, why we do business with CCP.
CCP clearly intends for ships to generate a killmail when the pilot self-destructs under pressure from other players. Killmail generation after a self-destruct was not always the case and they went out of their way to make changes so that happened. It is perfectly reasonable to point out that is no longer happening because of a newer change to the game given that the situation described in the OP is almost certainly not an intended feature or function of tethering.
I maintain that the ability to self-destruct while protected by a tether isn't consistent with CCP vision of killmails, at least the one they had in the past when they made the Inferno changes, and thus tethering should not be allowed during the self-destruct sequence. However, given the problem isn't game-breaking, I don't see any urgency. Just add it to the list of structure tweaks/fixes and if and when someone gets that far down the list and the fix is simple, implement it. Why shouldn't CCP do that? Is there some interesting game play or value added to the game by allowing people to dodge killmails that I am missing?
The 8 Golden Rules of Eve
Why Do They Gank?
|
Kenrailae
Mind Games. Suddenly Spaceships.
717
|
Posted - 2017.01.30 09:19:16 -
[30] - Quote
Black Pedro wrote:No, you are entitled to log into a playable server, and enjoy a consistent and logically implemented game. That is, of course, why we do business with CCP. CCP clearly intends for ships to generate a killmail when the pilot self-destructs under pressure from other players. Killmail generation after a self-destruct was not always the case and they went out of their way to make changes so that happened. It is perfectly reasonable to point out that is no longer happening because of a newer change to the game given that the situation described in the OP is almost certainly not an intended feature or function of tethering. I maintain that the ability to self-destruct while protected by a tether isn't consistent with CCP vision of killmails, at least the one they had in the past when they made the Inferno changes, and thus tethering should not be allowed during the self-destruct sequence. However, given the problem isn't game-breaking, I don't see any urgency. Just add it to the list of structure tweaks/fixes and if and when someone gets that far down the list and the fix is simple, implement it. Why shouldn't CCP do that? Is there some interesting game play or value added to the game by allowing people to dodge killmails that I am missing?
You're very clearly missing something. Your example is for ships tackled or engaged in combat trying to deny a killmail by SD'ing. Ships tethered to a citadel are NOT engaged in combat or aggressed. It'd also be a pretty colossal oversight, even for CCP, to assume that players would never SD while tethered. It is 100% no different than the old mechanic of self destructing in a POS shield. I s'pose next you're going to suggest that everyone who activates SD in a POS shield should be jettisoned? Actually, no, I lied. It IS different than POS shields. At least with Citadels you have a chance of bumping ships off until they fix the tethered/bump mechanic. So you're already getting an improvement.
HTFU and stop complaining about people being intelligent in this game. Bob knows we have enough F1 monkeys to go around.
The Law is a point of View
The NPE IS a big deal
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |