EVE Search - The annoying self destruct button ...

Check My IP Information

All Channels

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

The annoying self destruct button ...

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 :: [one page]

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
ZyndeII Legio Prima Victrix Imperius Legio Victrix	Posted - 2011.07.04 17:27:00 - [1] Alright so, the famous red button. This has already been mentioned several times before, but I'll go ahead and bring it up again anyways. Which of you have experienced this before: as a small but decent roaming gang, you run into a carrier or any other cap. You take out the support fleet, keep tackle on it and right around the time where you realize that your RR is gonna hold and the carrier is inevitably going down, you see the message: "buttface123 has initiated self-destruct". You try your best, put all the neuts and dps you got on it, but the ehp is just too much to break in 120 seconds ... and poof it goes. Carrier down, victory. Victory ? Well ... maybe in spirit, knowing that you just cost someone else a capital ship, but hell, there isn't even any proof of it. No modules to loot, not even a killmail. Best case scenario, you get to show your friends a frozen corpse. Meh. Now, I understand the concept of self-destructing. Also, being a hardcore Wormhole operative, I am well aware of the importance of that feature. But should it really be THAT easy for someone to deny someone else their rightful victory ? Imho, it's pure BS, and just on the same level as logoffski if not even worse ! I'll put 2 different suggestions out there: 1) Since it's mostly about Killmails, just make it so that if you self-destruct while having an aggression timer, a lossmail is generated for you in favor of the aggressing party, and a killmail for those he had an aggression timer on. So if he wants out the cheap way, he'll still do it, but not without at least marking it on the boards for everyone to see. 2) Extend the self-destruct timer to 900 seconds. It would then be similar to logoffski while having an aggression timer. And having 15 minutes to finish someone off will at least give them a halfway decent chance to do so. I reckon this isn't asking for too much, and the changes regarding this would be minimal. It would however greatly increase the gaming experience of people who enjoy small scale roams. Thanks for taking this under advisement, ZyndeII
Izziee	Posted - 2011.07.04 17:53:00 - [2] no
Legionos McGuiros Caldari Legio Prima Victrix Imperius Legio Victrix	Posted - 2011.07.04 17:57:00 - [3] Constructive criticism please mr Troll
E man Industries	Posted - 2011.07.04 19:17:00 - [4] Does it affect the loot that drops? You mention you can't loot. If so that needs to be changed. ______ Hello WoW players. Look at your toon, now back to me. Sadly it isn't me, but if it wasn't simplistic pre scripted linear mono dimensional game you could look like me. I'm in a Paladin
Legionos McGuiros Caldari Legio Prima Victrix Imperius Legio Victrix	Posted - 2011.07.04 19:49:00 - [5] Self destructing gives no wreck so u dont get loot and u dont get a killmail
E man Industries	Posted - 2011.07.04 20:01:00 - [6] Originally by: Legionos McGuiros Self destructing gives no wreck so u dont get loot and u dont get a killmail Okay did not relize that. That is dumb. Proposal supported. ______ Hello WoW players. Look at your toon, now back to me. Sadly it isn't me, but if it wasn't simplistic pre scripted linear mono dimensional game you could look like me. I'm in a Paladin
Rodion Romanovich Raskolnikov	Posted - 2011.07.04 20:03:00 - [7] Heh, deprived of a precious killmail? Let me fetch my diminutive violin...
ZyndeII Legio Prima Victrix Imperius Legio Victrix	Posted - 2011.07.04 20:49:00 - [8] Self destructing your ship does generate a wreck, but ALL modules on the ship will be destroyed so that no loot can be obtained.
Illuminaty	Posted - 2011.07.04 20:56:00 - [9] Originally by: Rodion Romanovich Raskolnikov Heh, deprived of a precious killmail? Let me fetch my diminutive violin... OK, lets reverse the situation. Suppose that self-destructing produced a killmail and showed up on killboards. Suppose someone complained that self-destructing their carrier in triage mode inside a C2 wormhole shouldn't generated a killmail so they can hide their loss. What would be my response? Quote: Heh, deprived of padding your precious killboard efficency? Let me fetch my diminutive violin... Which says to me that both sides are equally based around killboard wh***ing. Now that we've established that, how should it be handled? Should the guy who blew up his carrier while an enemy gang is on top of him be able to hide his loss to pad his efficiency, or should the gang that forced him to self-destruct be able to get a killmail to make their stats accurate? If anything, anyone who kills a carrier with a gang that doesn't have a blob big enough to burn a triage carrier down in 2 minutes deserves that killmail more than just about anyone else that will ever get a killmail on a carrier.
Bl4ck Ph03n1x Echoes of Nowhere	Posted - 2011.07.04 23:37:00 - [10] No. It's all about honor. Self destruction is the way to say your ennemy "I will lose, but you won't win." You die.But you don't die by the hand of theses bastards. And you don't let them any trophy. You don't have to like it.

Aggressive Nutmeg	Posted - 2011.07.05 03:05:00 - [11] It would be unrealistic to remove the self-destruct feature or to extend the timer. Having said that, perhaps we could encourage less self-destruction with a small change: If you self-destruct, you also pod yourself! I think that's realistic. If the self-destruct destroys all modules, then perhaps it should destroy the pod as well?
Tedrick	Posted - 2011.07.05 03:37:00 - [12] Why do you need a killmail? Is a victory really a victory if your opponent torch his own equipment? Read about the Russians and the scortched earth tactics of the great patriotic war. They burned and blew up gear and stores just so the advancing Germans could not get them. Eve, whether by chance or not, has that same mechanic where a pilot can choose to give you the finger and state that you can take his ship, but if you cant kill him fast enough, you can never take THAT KILLMAIL. I was there. Saw it all from the not sociopathic-killmail-whoring side. Tough luck on not getting the km though.
Illuminaty	Posted - 2011.07.05 09:55:00 - [13] Originally by: Tedrick Why do you need a killmail? Is a victory really a victory if your opponent torch his own equipment? Read about the Russians and the scortched earth tactics of the great patriotic war. They burned and blew up gear and stores just so the advancing Germans could not get them. Eve, whether by chance or not, has that same mechanic where a pilot can choose to give you the finger and state that you can take his ship, but if you cant kill him fast enough, you can never take THAT KILLMAIL. I was there. Saw it all from the not sociopathic-killmail-whoring side. Tough luck on not getting the km though. Unlike you, the Russians won. We need a more appropriate analogy. How about ******(delusional person) offing himself(self-destructing) after hiding in his bunker(triage mode) when his egomanical and incompetent plans(carrier at zero on a highsec wormhole) lead his forces to total defeat. Seriously though, seeing 3x carriers self destruct instead of going down fighting in one day is just sort of sad.
AdZc Caldari Legio Prima Victrix Imperius Legio Victrix	Posted - 2011.07.05 11:03:00 - [14] Maybe even have warp disruptors/scrams cancel self destructs? From a RP point of view perhaps the warp core is what makes the ship assplode and as the scrams/ruptors shut it down it could be the same? You cant overload to create the self destruct as scrambler has it shut down? But yea its just crap, at the very least, perhaps it should show on the KM anyway? Perhaps with a tag to show a self destruct? It is a cowardly thing to do IMO, if your gonna go down, go down fighting, but as is eve you can be a **** and self destruct. I think my idea sounds alright? Unless there is something else that causes a Self Destruct.
Robert Caldera	Posted - 2011.07.05 11:22:00 - [15] I think KM and loot denial is all right, if you dont have enough firepower to down the ship in 2 minutes.
AdZc Caldari Legio Prima Victrix Imperius Legio Victrix	Posted - 2011.07.05 11:29:00 - [16] Originally by: Robert Caldera I think KM and loot denial is all right, if you dont have enough firepower to down the ship in 2 minutes. So if you arent in a huge gang to do that...tough crap? as stated above, a smaller gang needs more effort to destroy the carrier so should get the rewards?
Robert Caldera	Posted - 2011.07.05 12:08:00 - [17] Originally by: AdZc So if you arent in a huge gang to do that...tough crap? as stated above, a smaller gang needs more effort to destroy the carrier so should get the rewards? mh, no.. why should they? Nobody forces you to destroy any carrier with a small gang.
AdZc Caldari Legio Prima Victrix Imperius Legio Victrix	Posted - 2011.07.05 12:35:00 - [18] Originally by: Robert Caldera Originally by: AdZc So if you arent in a huge gang to do that...tough crap? as stated above, a smaller gang needs more effort to destroy the carrier so should get the rewards? mh, no.. why should they? Nobody forces you to destroy any carrier with a small gang. In a wh you dont have luxury of Cynos or reinforcements a few jumps out.
Legionos McGuiros Caldari Legio Prima Victrix Imperius Legio Victrix	Posted - 2011.07.05 14:07:00 - [19] Edited by: Legionos McGuiros on 05/07/2011 14:08:39 Exactly, we have come across many carriers in WH space, most of the time we dont have the manpower to kill one because we are a small group and we want to remain a small group. Nullsec blobbing is horrible and most people agree as you can see form all the 'features and ideas' about reducing the blob. Recently weve had the manpower to actually take down carriers in our small groups, and out of those 3/4 have self-destructed knowing we dont have the dps to kill them in under 2minutes. Its bull** and unfair to the small guys who dont want to run around with hundreds of capitals in **ty low/null warfare. CCP needs to give more love to the small gang, tactical and ultimately more staisfying pvp that alot of people prefer.
Mr Cleann Caldari State War Academy	Posted - 2011.07.05 14:17:00 - [20] I don't use the self destruct feature. TBH I forgot about it lol. As for the timer it should be determined by the size of the ship and it should have an option to generate some form of damage type against the opposing force. The ship type would determine the size of the blast radius and amount of damage given. If the primary weapon on a stealth bomber can generate a blast radius of 15km then a BS, being of much bigger size than that bomb should be able to create a blast/damage radius of at least 60km. Where as a frigate can generate a 5km blast radius. This feature should be expanded on. In both the timer issue and the destructive force generated. Essentially when a ship decides to self destruct. it has turned it's self in to a bomb and should be treated as such. Another thing that should be added is the resulting self destruct should also include the death of the pilot. Since that is what self destruct is all about. Eliminating your ship from being captured and salvaged and its crew (of one in this case) from being torched and held captive. Be the kind of man that when your feet hit the floor each morning, the devil says "Oh crap, he's up!"

Cris KillAlot Minmatar Hooters and Looters	Posted - 2011.07.05 14:21:00 - [21] Hmmm i will jin the guys calling a win for a win, the guy went down, Kill mail or not! that he take the easy why out is his choice! He still lost a ship and you still won! All kill mails are is seaking aproval of others! Mutan killer bunnys from space are not cute pets!
Mahkal Caldari	Posted - 2011.07.05 15:15:00 - [22] Denying your enemy the killmails they are after is a legitimate tactic.
Robert Caldera	Posted - 2011.07.05 15:49:00 - [23] right, not getting a KM is the price for your decision for living in WH or running in small gangs around. I think selfdestruct is a nice way to refuse your enemy a ***ty KM if he has got not enough firepower to take me down quickly and I think it should be there. A supercarrier will simply log off when you tackle him, a carrier selfdestructs shrug*
Mr Cleann Caldari State War Academy	Posted - 2011.07.05 16:00:00 - [24] If a player that is actively engaged in combat logs off to save their ship. Then that ship should remain on scene for 10 minutes. This would put a stop to the logging problem. I do believe self destructing your ship is a valid combat tactic of last resort, used to deny your enemy any kind of victory and it should be expanded to cause damage as posted above. However the so called tactic of logging just because you are on the losing end of a fight that will drain your pocket book should be seriously frowned upon. You log off before the first shot is fired then normal warp out times apply. but once shooting starts the timer should be set to 10 minutes or higher to dissuade such action. Be the kind of man that when your feet hit the floor each morning, the devil says "Oh crap, he's up!"
Amber Villaneous	Posted - 2011.07.06 03:18:00 - [25] Originally by: Mr Cleann If a player that is actively engaged in combat logs off to save their ship. Then that ship should remain on scene for 10 minutes. This would put a stop to the logging problem. I do believe self destructing your ship is a valid combat tactic of last resort, used to deny your enemy any kind of victory and it should be expanded to cause damage as posted above. However the so called tactic of logging just because you are on the losing end of a fight that will drain your pocket book should be seriously frowned upon. You log off before the first shot is fired then normal warp out times apply. but once shooting starts the timer should be set to 10 minutes or higher to dissuade such action. You must be new, if you log with agression you remain in space for 15 minutes.
Suiginryou Hitaiga Caldari	Posted - 2011.07.06 07:48:00 - [26] I would observe... In my book, it's okay if someone gets a KM when I selfdestruct. About wormholes... well, let there be no killmail on selfdestruct in wh-space, what's the problem? Also, let the timer depend on mineral value of the ship - the more it is, the longer the countdown, from instant pop for a noobship, to about a minute for a hulk, to about ten minutes for (super)carriers in question the OP is about. ___ Remove insurance payouts for concord kills Make wardecs expensive and declinable Make SS go -1.0 per offense Remove L4 agents from hisec Allow non-corp hisec POS and moon mining
Mr Cleann Caldari State War Academy	Posted - 2011.07.06 16:05:00 - [27] Originally by: Amber Villaneous Originally by: Mr Cleann If a player that is actively engaged in combat logs off to save their ship. Then that ship should remain on scene for 10 minutes. This would put a stop to the logging problem. I do believe self destructing your ship is a valid combat tactic of last resort, used to deny your enemy any kind of victory and it should be expanded to cause damage as posted above. However the so called tactic of logging just because you are on the losing end of a fight that will drain your pocket book should be seriously frowned upon. You log off before the first shot is fired then normal warp out times apply. but once shooting starts the timer should be set to 10 minutes or higher to dissuade such action. You must be new, if you log with agression you remain in space for 15 minutes. actually, no I have been playing the game for the past 7 years. I don't log when I am in combat, however I don't do much PvP. Mainly mission and industrial. As such I forgot all about the timer having been adjusted a few years back. But I thought it was only 10 min. Thanks for the reminder. Be the kind of man that when your feet hit the floor each morning, the devil says "Oh crap, he's up!"
Mr Cleann Caldari State War Academy	Posted - 2011.07.06 16:25:00 - [28] Originally by: Suiginryou Hitaiga I would observe... In my book, it's okay if someone gets a KM when I self destruct. About wormholes... well, let there be no kill mail on self destruct in wh-space, what's the problem? Also, let the timer depend on mineral value of the ship - the more it is, the longer the countdown, from instant pop for a noobs hip, to about a minute for a hulk, to about ten minutes for (super)carriers in question the OP is about. Kill mails should only occur in Empire Space. Once you go to null sec or wormhole space you are out of range for any kind of such recognition until you dock at a Empire station and you ships combat log is downloaded to the stations data base Or if that is a little inconvenient, as it would be to a minimal degree, The kill can be registered once you enter empire space. To keep people from losing kill mails, the ship can hold kill results for up to 3 weeks before overwriting the kill. I also feel that once a ship exits empire space the local communications channel should NOT show someone on the channel until they speak. Once that happens they stay on the channel even after they leave the system. This would enhance mystery aspect in the game. Be the kind of man that when your feet hit the floor each morning, the devil says "Oh crap, he's up!"
HELLBOUNDMAN	Posted - 2011.07.06 16:39:00 - [29] When you think about it though, it really wasn't that easy for them to deny you that victory. They basically had to sit there hoping to god that they self destructed before you popped them. However, on your point, 1) Yes, this should still be shown as a killmail, but with significantly less loss to the person popped, and significantly less points to the person popping. Reason is, if you and your crew wasn't fast enough to beat his timer, than you shouldn't be awarded near as much for basically being incompetent. He would also lose less for basically out playing you and your crew. 2) Extending the self destruct button to 900 seconds would be ridiculous, that would give you 15 minutes to pop him after he initiates self destruct. It doesn't matter how you throw the dice, he would have to initiate self destruct long before he was even sure how your fleet would fair at popping him, and if a fleet did come in that he knew for sure would pop him, then 15 minutes would be too long for him to survive anyway. I understand your thoughts on the killmails and that makes sense, and should be addressed, but to lengthen the duration of self destruct is just crazy. If you come across a super carrier that you know you can pop, but it might take a little time, then you need to wait for reinforcements to speed up the process...
HELLBOUNDMAN	Posted - 2011.07.06 16:49:00 - [30] Originally by: Legionos McGuiros Its bull** and unfair to the small guys who dont want to run around with hundreds of capitals in ty low/null warfare. I love this statement. Reason why is because as a carebear anytime i get **ed about can flippers or mission raiders I'm always told it's an aspect of the game and to deal with it. SO FINALLY, FOR ONCE IN EVE'S HISTORY THE TIDES HAVE CHANGED!!!!! HOW DOES IT FEEL TO HAVE YOUR OWN SUGGESTIONS AND STATEMENTS BACK FIRE ON YOU?!?!?

Mag's the united Negative Ten.	Posted - 2011.07.06 17:26:00 - [31] Not supported. I like the fact that people have the opportunity, to deny both loot and a KM. Either kill it before the 2 minutes are up or leave with nothing.
shadowace00007 Amarr Beyond The Gates	Posted - 2011.07.06 20:09:00 - [32] +1. Simply put Cap ships can die like the rest of us. ----------- Born Amarr, Raised Minmatar.
Mr Cleann Caldari State War Academy	Posted - 2011.07.07 19:22:00 - [33] I think self destruct should be expanded. It is meant as a last ditch effort to deny victory and access to components that could aid the other sides cause. As such the ships should be turned in to bombs that result in complete destruction of smaller ships and heavy damage to ships that are its equal. If a bomb launched from a stealth bomber can pop ships within 15km of its detonation. Then these ships, being of much larger size than a bomb should be able to damage or destroy ships when they have essentially turned them selves in to bombs. The damage radius should be based on ship size. damage should be dependent on race specific ships the way missiles are figured. Also the self destruct should also cause the death of the pilot. To get around the problems that would be caused in high sec. Either use dampeners that contain the destructive energy when near neutral ships and stations. Or make it a module that enhances the current self destruct package. In the star trek universe there are two separate ways to destroy a star ship. On is by shutting down the antimatter containment system which instantly causes the ship to explode like a star (star trek the motion picture). The other way is to activate a conventional explosives package that destroys all sensitive locations on the ship by overloading the phaser banks while at the same time locking all interior doors and airlocks in an open stasis. Which is what happened in Star Trek 3. I think this can be a very useful tool if expanded upon. Be the kind of man that when your feet hit the floor each morning, the devil says "Oh crap, he's up!"
KiaTader	Posted - 2011.07.07 20:01:00 - [34] Your enemy died. You won the battle. How can that possibly not be enough?


Pages: 1 2 :: [one page]

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.