| Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 :: one page |
| Author |
Topic |
Adarr
Caldari
g guild
Imperial Republic Of the North
    |
Posted - 2008.03.06 22:26:00 -
[91]
 Originally by: Endless Subversion
I could jump through a gate in my non-player aggressed battleship. I jump into a smaller camp. However, I'm cloaked, I could just start my self-destruct then. No flag when it starts so I'm good to go.
Hehe, well, whoever's that much a carebear certaintly deserves to lose their insurance, so no argument on that.
|
Endless Subversion
|
Posted - 2008.03.06 22:26:00 -
[92]
Quote:
This would be an idea. It could be implemented in the form of an ever-increasing capacitor drain (slowly rendering active tanks disabled), or it could start to overheat modules until they swith off one by one (similar to what overloading modules currently does).
I like the heat idea since it includes passive tanks as well.
Fix Self Destruct & LogOffs |
Rashmika Sky
|
Posted - 2008.03.07 01:30:00 -
[93]
Maybe instead of nerfing self destruct, insurance should be removed from Eve. Insurance causes all sorts of problems related to "realism", your complaints about self destruct still giving payouts from insurance is only one of these.
You're arguing to remove insurance from ships that are self destructed, but as is commonly pointed out, what sane insurance company would insure combat ships in the first place?
Remove insurance from everyone, and we'll see much more realistic behavior in how people treat their ships. There's no reason realistic behavior should extend only to whether or not one initiates self destruct.
-Rash
|
Tarron Sarek
Gallente
Cadien Cybernetics
|
Posted - 2008.03.07 01:58:00 -
[94]
Originally by: Rashmika Sky
You're arguing to remove insurance from ships that are self destructed, but as is commonly pointed out, what sane insurance company would insure combat ships in the first place?
Yes, that's definitely a good point.
Unfortunately it's one of the few possibilities to make self destruction a decision where you have to consider certain pros and cons.
Without insurance, it's again a no-brainer.
Personally, I don't like killboards and I couldn't care less about killmails.
But many players find them important and a fat killmail is probably the ultimate e-peen enlarger. Also, as has been stated in some nice article I recently read, highscores and kill counters improve the replayability value of a game.
As EVE has no real end-game content or 'goal', you can say PvP and reaping kills is one of the few things left to do for high SP chars.
As such CCP probably can't ignore killmails, killboards and all their implications.
___________________________________
- Balance is power, guard it well -
Please stop using the word 'nerf'
Nothing spells 'incompetence' or 'don't take me serious' like those four letters |
Wet Ferret
|
Posted - 2008.03.07 07:51:00 -
[95]
Originally by: Endless Subversion
1)If you self-destruct all insurance is voided. Meaning not even the basic uninsured balance is paid out.
2) Your destruct timer is based on ship class and tech level. A carrier takes much longer than a frigate and a golem takes significantly longer than a raven.
3) There is some kind of module degragation. Probably a tank degragation makes most sense, though I'd entertain ideas as to how this should be balanced.
#2 makes sense from an actual balance standpoint, since ships are more durable and many bigger, beefier ships have been added since as well.
Your other ideas are crap that would just prevent people from using the feature at all, which still seems like your actual goal. 
 |
Endless Subversion
|
Posted - 2008.03.11 12:56:00 -
[96]
Originally by: Wet Ferret
#2 makes sense from an actual balance standpoint, since ships are more durable and many bigger, beefier ships have been added since as well.
Your other ideas are crap that would just prevent people from using the feature at all, which still seems like your actual goal.
As I keep pointing out. Self destruct is currently imbalanced. There is, literally, no reason not to use it in any fight. It costs the user nothing and can be stopped at any time and denies the victor any of the spoils of the kill.
I'm definately trying to limit its use, because currently it is overpowered. It can be (and is being) exploited. This is epecially noticable in certain extremes, capitals/massive buffer tanks on the hand and low dps gangs/solo on the other.
The point of this thread, other than to call attention to the issue, is to garner ideas for ways to balance the feature without removing it entirely.
So if you don't like the ideas that have been presented either offer an argument for why it doesn't need changing from it's current state OR offer ideas of what it should be changed to an why.
Otherwise you're just wasting my time.
Fix Self Destruct & LogOffs |
Okotomi Anki
|
Posted - 2008.03.11 17:19:00 -
[97]
1. The person who did the most damage (aggressor or owner) should get the killmail. That means, if you get an Archon into 50% armor - you're guaranteed a killmail. If you get shield tanking Chimera into 70% shield, dealing 250000 damage, you get a killmail. If you scared the sh1t out of a farming Raven with your lone Crow and he popped himself - you dont have the right to ask for a killmail, because you just met an idiot.
2. Being unable to cancel the selfdestruct sequence after the first 60 seconds - good idea.
3. No loot should be dropped in the wreck, thats the whole point of selfdestructing. Get over it. Try ransoming instead. If your ransom attempts end up with selfdestructs too often - try tune your ransoms down a bit.
4. A$$holes will always be a$$holes, no game mechanics could solve this. If you run into them often, you should get used to them, not upset
TBH, i did see only two selfdestructs in my eve career. One was a guy in a rifter whom we persistently probed out of boredom, the other was myself, i popped my already insured Raven when my corp joined the wrong alliance , just didn't want to sell it to the enemies.
|
Endless Subversion
|
Posted - 2008.03.13 13:32:00 -
[98]
I've seen many more self-destructs. Primarily on capitals and buffer/passive tanked targets.
Each and everytime I've seen it happen I've thought how broken it is.
Self Destruct & LogOffs |
Ellaine TashMurkon
|
Posted - 2008.03.13 14:34:00 -
[99]
Edited by: Ellaine TashMurkon on 13/03/2008 14:37:08
I've never lost a ship due to enemy self destruction. Also, none of my targets ever saved its ship by self destructing it to fight another day :)
If killmail is so important, type it by hand and add "SELF DESTRUCT" as final blow dealer :)
In fact, the killmai system should do so.
For the loot, self destructing should leave a normal wreck.
 |
Endless Subversion
|
Posted - 2008.03.13 17:28:00 -
[100]
Edited by: Endless Subversion on 13/03/2008 17:28:46
Originally by: Ellaine TashMurkon
I've never lost a ship due to enemy self destruction.
I have, at least indirectly.
I've been part of a small gang that took down a faction/officer fit carrier (an officer WD and at least a domi web, who knows what else). We managed, through cap warfare, logistics and a little patience, to break the carrier's tank.
Eventually the carrier realized he wasn't going to be able to tank us long enough for help to arrive and self destructed as our small gang struggled to finish his HP off before the timer expired.
Depending on how expensive a fit the carrier had I may have lost multiple BS's worth of ISK.
It is even more pronounced on the solo side where the ISK dropped in modules isn't split at all. Modules destroyed in self-destructing are nearly a straight up hit on the wallet of the victor.
And, as many people in this thread suggest, maybe the victim ought to be able to self-destruct and deny his attckers the loot BUT it shouldn't be without penalty, it shouldn't be better to attempt self-destruct everytime you're going to die. Right now you're always better off self-destructing than not, and that needs to change.
Self Destruct & LogOffs |
Mae West
|
Posted - 2008.03.13 18:19:00 -
[101]
If someone knows they're not going to win and doesn't want their enemy to get their loot why shouldn't they be allowed to self destruct??
Even though it would suck for it to happen to me I fully understand the want of not giving things to the enemy.
Who cares if you didn't get a KM??? The dudes ship is gone, he's in a pod and your not.
============================
This is my sig yo |
Natalie Jax
|
Posted - 2008.03.13 18:49:00 -
[102]
Self-destruct is still useful in non-combat situations, for collecting insurance payout. I suppose it wouldn't be too much trouble to get some combat going for someone else to kill you though, like ****ing off CONCORD or a gategun in empire, or any given belt in lowsec.
I like the heat buildup idea the most though:
1) Start self destruct timer, minimum of 2 minutes.
2) As soon as the timer begins, your ship begins to overheat, all racks at once.
3) When all of your modules are overheated (inactive), or the two minute timer expires whichever is longer, your ship explodes.
With heat, higher tech modules die faster, thus making killing it that much easier if their tank relies on it. Heat doesn't hit everything equally, so you get a shot at bringing it down and getting your trinkets and he still has a shot of blowing up, successfully scuttling his ship.
|
Endless Subversion
|
Posted - 2008.03.13 23:35:00 -
[103]
Edited by: Endless Subversion on 13/03/2008 23:37:16
Originally by: Mae West
If someone knows they're not going to win and doesn't want their enemy to get their loot why shouldn't they be allowed to self destruct??
Even though it would suck for it to happen to me I fully understand the want of not giving things to the enemy.
Who cares if you didn't get a KM??? The dudes ship is gone, he's in a pod and your not.
The issue isn't that a player has the option to blow up their ship. The issue is that it currently costs a player nothing to do that and should always be done yet as it hurts the opponnent but not the player doing it.
This benefit without tradeoff is imbalanced.
Self Destruct & LogOffs |
Mae West
|
Posted - 2008.03.13 23:56:00 -
[104]
Edited by: Mae West on 13/03/2008 23:59:31
Edited by: Mae West on 13/03/2008 23:57:39
Although the more i think about it if you self destruct you shouldn't get the insurance... or atleast you shouldn't get all of it.
Imagine this... you own a house and you don't like it. You can't sell it cause the market is crap so you set it on fire. Police figure it's arson.... does your insurance company pay you? I think not.
Ok you've changed my mind.... surely the all knowing eve insurance company would be able to tell if your were pew pewed or if you blew yourself up.
============================
This is my sig yo |
Rawr Cristina
Naqam
|
Posted - 2008.03.14 11:05:00 -
[105]
Self-destruction to deny loot is perfectly fine IMO except in the case of Capital Ships, which I'm not really sure about.
Get rid of the ability to deny loot/km and you might as well scrap SDing altogether 
...
 |
Ankhesentapemkah
Aliastra
|
Posted - 2008.03.14 11:54:00 -
[106]
Edited by: Ankhesentapemkah on 14/03/2008 11:54:11
Originally by: Endless Subversion
Edited by: Endless Subversion on 13/03/2008 23:37:16
Originally by: Mae West
If someone knows they're not going to win and doesn't want their enemy to get their loot why shouldn't they be allowed to self destruct??
Even though it would suck for it to happen to me I fully understand the want of not giving things to the enemy.
Who cares if you didn't get a KM??? The dudes ship is gone, he's in a pod and your not.
The issue isn't that a player has the option to blow up their ship. The issue is that it currently costs a player nothing to do that and should always be done yet as it hurts the opponnent but not the player doing it.
This benefit without tradeoff is imbalanced.
You know what, get rid of suicide ganking insurance first, which is actually a big problem, unlike selfdestructs.
|
Okotomi Anki
Caldari Provisions
|
Posted - 2008.03.17 12:58:00 -
[107]
Originally by: Mae West
Although the more i think about it if you self destruct you shouldn't get the insurance... or atleast you shouldn't get all of it.
Imagine this... you own a house and you don't like it. You can't sell it cause the market is crap so you set it on fire. Police figure it's arson.... does your insurance company pay you? I think not.
Ok you've changed my mind.... surely the all knowing eve insurance company would be able to tell if your were pew pewed or if you blew yourself up.
Agreed. That would be easy to implement, and wouldnt change things too raidcally. Good for a start.
I'm not sure about removing insurance from highsec gankers. Thats completely another story, but seems logical as well.
|
Malachon Draco
eXceed Inc.
eXceed.
|
Posted - 2008.03.17 13:03:00 -
[108]
Originally by: Adarr
Originally by: Endless Subversion
I could jump through a gate in my non-player aggressed battleship. I jump into a smaller camp. However, I'm cloaked, I could just start my self-destruct then. No flag when it starts so I'm good to go.
Hehe, well, whoever's that much a carebear certaintly deserves to lose their insurance, so no argument on that.
Actually, you'd be an idiot to self-destruct then. If you can survive the 120 seconds till self-destruct, you would certainly survive the 30 seconds till disappearance if you logoff. Of course this is assuming that you don't consider logging off worse than self-destructing.
|
Endless Subversion
Blood Corsair's
Blood Blind
|
Posted - 2008.03.18 13:05:00 -
[109]
Originally by: Malachon Draco
Actually, you'd be an idiot to self-destruct then. If you can survive the 120 seconds till self-destruct, you would certainly survive the 30 seconds till disappearance if you logoff. Of course this is assuming that you don't consider logging off worse than self-destructing.
Check the other link in my sig m8. I'm working on that end too ;p
Self Destruct & LogOffs |
Cheyenne Shadowborn
Caldari Provisions
|
Posted - 2008.03.20 16:51:00 -
[110]
Originally by: Monty Kvaran
#2 Seems like the simplest solution, but it does create a dilema for those trying to get rid of a ship with a higher insurance payout then it sells for.
Not really. Not assuming that Eve's insurance would be stupid enough to pay for a self-destruct, my method has always been 1. strip fit 2. warp to belt 3. wait.
This way some happy Guristas frig got kill mails for a few Drakes and Ravens, makes em happy
--
|
Kruel
Beyond Divinity Inc
|
Posted - 2008.03.20 19:01:00 -
[111]
Originally by: Cpt Branko
Just make self-destructed ships drop loot, and it's fine really.
I like this idea TBH.
|
Endless Subversion
Blood Corsair's
Blood Blind
|
Posted - 2008.03.25 03:23:00 -
[112]
Originally by: Kruel
Originally by: Cpt Branko
Just make self-destructed ships drop loot, and it's fine really.
I like this idea TBH.
A lot of players seem to think denying the loot is valid. So be it, but there needs to be a penalty for this option.
Self Destruct & LogOffs |
Ilvan
Post with your Brain
|
Posted - 2008.03.25 11:34:00 -
[113]
Tradeoff? Make the countdown an irreversible act.
Hell, add a "WARNING: YOU ARE ABOUT TO DESTROY YOUR SHIP, NO REVERSIES" pop-up if needed (if there isn't one already, I can't remember), but make the self-destruct option stick to what it's meant to be: a last-ditch attempt to deprive your enemy of spoils (which is a valid tactic and should remain in place). The OP is right, however, in that currently there's no reason to not toggle S-D mode when in doubt.
I also agree with Rash; insurance sucks and should go faaaar away and never come back.
_______________________________
In the grim darkness of the far future, there is only lag |
Ellaine TashMurkon
CBC Interstellar
The Unseen Company
|
Posted - 2008.03.25 11:41:00 -
[114]
Another design;
Self destruct generates killmail with ship owner / weapon: self destruct as final blow, also sent to top damage dealer.
Self destruct reduces chance of droping stuff in cargo by 50% (statistically 2 times less loot dropped from cargo).
Self destruct does not destroy fitted modules. They drop normaly. But you can use overheating to destroy fitted modules (maybe 5% chance to drop them anyway).
I think everyone would be happy with that :)
|
Endless Subversion
Blood Corsair's
Blood Blind
|
Posted - 2008.03.31 23:28:00 -
[115]
Originally by: Ellaine TashMurkon
Another design;
Self destruct generates killmail with ship owner / weapon: self destruct as final blow, also sent to top damage dealer.
Self destruct reduces chance of droping stuff in cargo by 50% (statistically 2 times less loot dropped from cargo).
Self destruct does not destroy fitted modules. They drop normaly. But you can use overheating to destroy fitted modules (maybe 5% chance to drop them anyway).
I think everyone would be happy with that :)
Still no tradeoff for self-destructing, it should still be done everytime. That's the part that needs to be changed.
Self Destruct & LogOffs |
Endless Subversion
Club Bear
|
Posted - 2008.04.22 14:02:00 -
[116]
Bump for continued relevance and lack of address.
Self Destruct & LogOffs |
Captator
Universal Securities
|
Posted - 2008.04.22 16:04:00 -
[117]
not sure if this has been suggested above, have been observing this thread on and off and have an idea to put forward:
Make self destruct cause all capregen to be redirected to overloading the reactor core, so if the ship is at low cap when it does self destruct, it will cap out quickly (this is assuming it has been bothering to rep and has thus run it's cap low).
If it is at high cap, it still might cap out quickly (depending on whether it is being neuted/nossed, drained by reps/hardeners etc), but this gives the aggressor a greater chance of popping the ship before it goes boom.
There could be other modifiers on ship stats further into the timer cycle, such as after a minute of the timer, self destruct can not be revoked, so the ship is going to go down win or lose, dissuading people from using it as a way of protecting their 'internet honour' and killboard stats.
other modifiers could include:
heat build up through the cycle, percentage based on percentage through the destruct timer, eg at 1min left heat damage at minimum of 50% etc
hull hit points starting to decrease after 1 minute, as the reactor starts getting hot enough to damage the ship from the inside.
damage controls being turned off as the decision to selfdestruct automatically offlines them, otherwise the reactor couldn't be overloaded. |
alt 089888
|
Posted - 2008.04.23 12:55:00 -
[118]
Learn to play noob. Loot and killmails arnt everything. Its a frickkin bomb ffs, you dont need cap to detonate it and you dont have to waste a month to self destruct, if its a carrier. The pilot still lose the ship. If you cant kill a ship in 2mins, your gang suck. Get more people. Remove the insurance payout from high sec gankers. Then we can talk about removing insurance from self destructed ship.
|
Captator
Universal Securities
|
Posted - 2008.04.23 13:45:00 -
[119]
Originally by: alt 089888
Learn to play noob. Loot and killmails arnt everything. Its a frickkin bomb ffs, you dont need cap to detonate it and you dont have to waste a month to self destruct, if its a carrier. The pilot still lose the ship. If you cant kill a ship in 2mins, your gang suck. Get more people. Remove the insurance payout from high sec gankers. Then we can talk about removing insurance from self destructed ship.
In order:
Most ships do not take to carrying massive amounts of explosives for the express purpose of self-destruction, so overloading the reactor would be a plausible self-destruction measure, especially not carriers which do not have direct fire weapons.
I don't believe I ever said that it would take a month to detonate, it still takes the two minutes as currently so perhaps you should learn to read, noob
Also I merely posted an idea for intelligent criticism (something your post displays a flagrant lack of), I never stated I was actually in favour of any modification of the game mechanics currently in place for self-destruction.
Finally, post with your main.
|
alt 089888
|
Posted - 2008.04.23 15:05:00 -
[120]
Originally by: Captator
In order:
Most ships do not take to carrying massive amounts of explosives for the express purpose of self-destruction, so overloading the reactor would be a plausible self-destruction measure, especially not carriers which do not have direct fire weapons.
I don't believe I ever said that it would take a month to detonate, it still takes the two minutes as currently so perhaps you should learn to read, noob
How do you know that most ships dont carry massive amounts of explosives? Have you seen my ship? Its packed with tnt. And I wasnt talking to you. I was talking to that moron who posted this thread.
Self destructing doesnt ruin this game. PvP in this game doesnt revolve around killmails and loot.
My post didnt have any idea for "intelligent criticism", because there is nothing needs to be done about self destructing. Why fix something thats not broken. And no I am not going to post with my main in this thread, because its not worth it. You can sit there and cry all day you want.
|
| Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |