EVE Search - Self-destructing reworked

All Channels

Assembly Hall

Self-destructing reworked

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 1 post(s)
FloppieTheBanjoClown The Skunkworks Petition Blizzard 740	Posted - 2012.01.05 14:57:00 - [91] - Quote Pretty much what I've been saying for a long time. As for killmails: currently when someone goes GCC and Concord attacks them, the system will generate a killmail for the player who did the most damage to them before Concord did the killing. This makes more sense (and is more consistent) than giving it to the last person to take a shot.
Katie Frost Asgard. Exodus. 12	Posted - 2012.01.05 23:39:00 - [92] - Quote I don't get the KM hate in this thread. It's a good feature in the game that allows players to review combat situations, check fits; it is useful in recruitment selection and of course the lol-mails for amusement. If people want to inflate their e-peen through KMs... let them. It's their choice to have their kill-board as their home-page and to hit refresh every time they press F1 in combat so that they can feel good about themselves. If you don't like KM's... don't post them, don't look at them, add fukug as your home-page.... w/e. +1 to the OP's proposal.
Simi Kusoni HelloKittyFanclub 25	Posted - 2012.01.06 00:11:00 - [93] - Quote Katie Frost wrote: add fukug as your home-page.... w/e. Personally I'd recommend lemon party.
Smiling Menace Star Nebulae Holdings Inc. 97	Posted - 2012.01.06 18:07:00 - [94] - Quote Vertisce Soritenshi wrote: I disagree with generating a killmail simply on the fact that in order to do so you will have to give credit to someone who didn't "actually" kill anything. The ship self destructed. What I would agree to is increasing the time it takes to self destruct and prevent the self destructing ship from being able to target anything and from using modules to avoid abusing that. Maybe make the self destruct timer based on the ships size. The whole point to self destruct is to deny your enemy the satisfaction of a kill. There is no other point in EvE for self destruct other than that right now. 5 minutes or so on self destruct for capitals (as they are really the only issue here) sounds about reasonable. I do agree that self destructing ships should NOT pay out insurance. Agree with this. Why should you get a KM if you didn't actually kill the ship?
Lord Zim Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 496	Posted - 2012.01.06 21:57:00 - [95] - Quote Actually, the problem with self destruct is that it's done for one out of two reasons: "my precious kill/death ratio!" or "oh **** my fit is so moronic I have to hide it". If killmails are given to the highest non-NPC damage dealer, even if someone self destructs, then maybe they'll go down fighting instead of being an absolute coward and initiating a fleet-wide selfdestruct of all dreads or whatever. Literally the only thing they're accomplishing (apart from ~their K/D ratio~), is making their defeat quicker and less costly for the attacker. It's dumb as rocks.
Lord Zim Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 496	Posted - 2012.01.06 22:03:00 - [96] - Quote Or as Grath said, 75b+ going kersplode without anyone shooting a single shot at them. Dumb. As. Rocks.
Malcanis Vanishing Point. The Initiative. 2562	Posted - 2012.01.07 07:44:00 - [97] - Quote Vertisce Soritenshi wrote: I disagree with generating a killmail simply on the fact that in order to do so you will have to give credit to someone who didn't "actually" kill anything. The ship self destructed. What I would agree to is increasing the time it takes to self destruct and prevent the self destructing ship from being able to target anything and from using modules to avoid abusing that. Maybe make the self destruct timer based on the ships size. The whole point to self destruct is to deny your enemy the satisfaction of a kill. There is no other point in EvE for self destruct other than that right now. 5 minutes or so on self destruct for capitals (as they are really the only issue here) sounds about reasonable. I do agree that self destructing ships should NOT pay out insurance. So if a small gang manage to hold down and slowly damage a supercap it's OK that they should be denied a KM, but massive blob fleets reliably get one? Why disincentivise smaller fleets from attacking supers? Malcanis' Law: Any proposal justified on the basis that "it will benefit new players" is invariably to the greater advantage of older, richer players. Things to do in EVE:-áhttp://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/
Malcanis Vanishing Point. The Initiative. 2562	Posted - 2012.01.07 07:45:00 - [98] - Quote Smiling Menace wrote: Vertisce Soritenshi wrote: I disagree with generating a killmail simply on the fact that in order to do so you will have to give credit to someone who didn't "actually" kill anything. The ship self destructed. What I would agree to is increasing the time it takes to self destruct and prevent the self destructing ship from being able to target anything and from using modules to avoid abusing that. Maybe make the self destruct timer based on the ships size. The whole point to self destruct is to deny your enemy the satisfaction of a kill. There is no other point in EvE for self destruct other than that right now. 5 minutes or so on self destruct for capitals (as they are really the only issue here) sounds about reasonable. I do agree that self destructing ships should NOT pay out insurance. Agree with this. Why should you get a KM if you didn't actually kill the ship? Ships which are finished off by CONCORD, gate guns, NPCs etc still generate a lossmail. Malcanis' Law: Any proposal justified on the basis that "it will benefit new players" is invariably to the greater advantage of older, richer players. Things to do in EVE:-áhttp://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/
J Kunjeh 312	Posted - 2012.01.07 11:30:00 - [99] - Quote Posting in a PL "I wants me kill mails so I can stroke my epeen" whine thread. "The world as we know it came about through an anomaly (anomou)" (The Gospel of Philip, 1-5)-á
Simi Kusoni HelloKittyFanclub 25	Posted - 2012.01.07 15:59:00 - [100] - Quote J Kunjeh wrote: Posting in a PL "I wants me kill mails so I can stroke my epeen" whine thread. Posting to confirm PL never bring enough deeps to beat the two minute timer. They should probably bring more supers and titans to fights.
Gypsio III Dirty Filthy Perverts 169	Posted - 2012.01.07 17:28:00 - [101] - Quote Vertisce Soritenshi wrote: I disagree with generating a killmail simply on the fact that in order to do so you will have to give credit to someone who didn't "actually" kill anything. This doesn't make any sense. The only reason to self-destruct in combat is because you know that you're going to die. This means that you have decided that your death is inevitable, meaning that activating S-D is, effectively, crediting your opponents with an inevitable kill. So it's entirely appropriate that S-D should generate a killmail if other parties were involved, presumably measured by an active aggression timer. The purpose of S-D is to deny your opponent loot and, arguably, ship fitting information. Both of these should remain, the latter simply by generating a killmail and lossmail containing no module information and with an extra message stating that the ship self-destructed.
Temba Ronin 118	Posted - 2012.01.07 17:52:00 - [102] - Quote Gypsio III wrote: Vertisce Soritenshi wrote: I disagree with generating a killmail simply on the fact that in order to do so you will have to give credit to someone who didn't "actually" kill anything. This doesn't make any sense. The only reason to self-destruct in combat is because you know that you're going to die. This means that you have decided that your death is inevitable, meaning that activating S-D is, effectively, crediting your opponents with an inevitable kill. So it's entirely appropriate that S-D should generate a killmail if other parties were involved, presumably measured by an active aggression timer. The purpose of S-D is to deny your opponent loot and, arguably, ship fitting information. Both of these should remain, the latter simply by generating a killmail and lossmail containing no module information and with an extra message stating that the ship self-destructed. Okay first i readily admit i am no master of EVE game play. I would like to propose as a possible middle ground position in this get a killmail for not actually killing anything argument this compromise: If any aggressed ship chooses to sd the ship having done the most damage shall receive a killmail, now the offer in kind is that any ship that is concorded after aggressing any other ship shall also generate a killmail for the owner of the ship he attacked and was concorded for. In essence sd will generate a killmail for the attacking pilot, gank will generate a killmail for the attacked pilot if the attacker is destroyed by concord. Sometimes you have to give to get, thus i am suggesting some give on both sides for some get on both sides without implying that both are of equal value. All thoughts thumbs up or down are appreciated.
Mystical Might The Imperial Fedaykin 70	Posted - 2012.01.07 22:30:00 - [103] - Quote Suppppppoooooorrrrrrtttttteeeeeedddddd.
Katie Frost Asgard. Exodus. 13	Posted - 2012.01.08 03:38:00 - [104] - Quote Smiling Menace wrote: Vertisce Soritenshi wrote: I disagree with generating a killmail simply on the fact that in order to do so you will have to give credit to someone who didn't "actually" kill anything. The ship self destructed. What I would agree to is increasing the time it takes to self destruct and prevent the self destructing ship from being able to target anything and from using modules to avoid abusing that. Maybe make the self destruct timer based on the ships size. The whole point to self destruct is to deny your enemy the satisfaction of a kill. There is no other point in EvE for self destruct other than that right now. 5 minutes or so on self destruct for capitals (as they are really the only issue here) sounds about reasonable. I do agree that self destructing ships should NOT pay out insurance. Agree with this. Why should you get a KM if you didn't actually kill the ship? This depends entirely on your definition of "kill" when a self-destruct is involved. You could argue that you did not lay the final blow to the SD-ed ship but since the ship is destroyed and your were involved in its destruction - you indeed committed a kill.
Jalmari Huitsikko draketrain Confederation of xXPIZZAXx 3	Posted - 2012.01.08 12:35:00 - [105] - Quote no insurance for selfdestruct otherwise i don't care it just doesnt make sense someone pays you for destroying your own ship it's dumb wormhole guys can still exploit insurance bullshit by shooting their corp mates rorquals
Simi Kusoni HelloKittyFanclub 25	Posted - 2012.01.08 17:23:00 - [106] - Quote Temba Ronin wrote: Okay first i readily admit i am no master of EVE game play. I would like to propose as a possible middle ground position in this get a killmail for not actually killing anything argument this compromise: If any aggressed ship chooses to sd the ship having done the most damage shall receive a killmail, now the offer in kind is that any ship that is concorded after aggressing any other ship shall also generate a killmail for the owner of the ship he attacked and was concorded for. In essence sd will generate a killmail for the attacking pilot, gank will generate a killmail for the attacked pilot if the attacker is destroyed by concord. Sometimes you have to give to get, thus i am suggesting some give on both sides for some get on both sides without implying that both are of equal value. All thoughts thumbs up or down are appreciated. Except these are two completely different issues, and so as invaluable as I'm sure your support is I don't feel particularly obliged to "trade" you anything for it. If you wish to propose KMs given to the victims of concorded ships, do so in another thread. This thread is not about suicide ganking, hell, it isn't even about high sec since very few ships big enough to SD in a (normal) fight are allowed to fly in high sec.
Lord Zim Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 500	Posted - 2012.01.08 19:01:00 - [107] - Quote If someone getting suicided wants killmails, all they have to do is aggress the guy. Downside to that is, however, that they lose their killright. vOv
firewalker220 Aperture Harmonics K162 1	Posted - 2012.01.11 23:53:00 - [108] - Quote +1 Please make this happen.
Zloco Crendraven Eye of God Controlled Chaos 6	Posted - 2012.01.11 23:58:00 - [109] - Quote +1 very good
Marlona Sky Caldari Provisions Caldari State 356	Posted - 2012.01.12 00:09:00 - [110] - Quote Just want to toss in this: Just like a cyno can not be activated in a POS shield; self destruct should not be allowed to be activated and when entering will be cancelled in a POS force field. The main reason for this is unknown space. Invaders successfully defeat an inhabitant only to watch as one of the main reasons for the attack is just self destructed over and over leaving nothing to be looted. A change like I said above would encourage more reasons to pew pew in unknown space. Flight of a Thousand Rifters: A Player Event
CraftyCroc Gunpoint Diplomacy 6	Posted - 2012.01.12 00:29:00 - [111] - Quote Signed CCP Soundwave wrote: May look into this in the future. Killmails you should certainly get. I was of the view loot should drop but reading on the matter and further thought has lead me to believe self destruct should destroy loot - but also insurance should be voided. If i called my insurance company and said I'd blown up my car they would tell me too **** off. As for killmails. These should defiantly be generated.... SD is used to prevent loss mails and this is flawed.
suptrader suptrader Corp 0	Posted - 2012.01.12 00:47:00 - [112] - Quote +1
Zarak1 Kenpach1 Aperture Harmonics K162 34	Posted - 2012.01.12 02:30:00 - [113] - Quote Aamrr wrote: Just a voice of consideration. Denying insurance payouts to self-destructing ships has a very real effect on wormhole space. Sometimes self-destructing isn't really voluntary... I generally agree with the thread, otherwise. can you give an example please?
Simi Kusoni HelloKittyFanclub 29	Posted - 2012.01.12 02:36:00 - [114] - Quote Zarak1 Kenpach1 wrote: Aamrr wrote: Just a voice of consideration. Denying insurance payouts to self-destructing ships has a very real effect on wormhole space. Sometimes self-destructing isn't really voluntary... I generally agree with the thread, otherwise. can you give an example please? I'm presuming he means when you move out, and cannot take your ships with you. This could be overcome by destroying it with an alt, and not posting the KMs. But it's boring. No insurance payout for self destructing ships if they have aggression? Would seem to solve that issue.
Skippidipp NorCorp Enterprise No Holes Barred 10	Posted - 2012.01.13 02:40:00 - [115] - Quote +1 This really needs a look at. What are we still doing with a game mechanic that should have been changed when capitals was introduced?? If some ideas are needed, make a new EMP module that fries the circuits of the ship and cancels the self destruct. Module should be hig slot, and usable by all types of ships. Or make it simple. Aggression = no self destruct
Scrapyard Bob EVE University Ivy League 605	Posted - 2012.01.13 03:11:00 - [116] - Quote Skippidipp wrote: Or make it simple. Aggression = no self destruct Which runs into the problem of - you get aggressed in a ship/pod, away from a gate, the attacker decides to just hold you there in place for an hour or two. Self-destruction is a legitimate way of saying "screw you, I'm not going to play your game". Now, if you want to make it that you can't self destruct if you have an active outbound 15-minute aggression timer, then maybe. But I would put the timer at more like 5-minutes before you can start the self-destruct timer, with the larger ships having timers up to 5-7 minutes long. Which would definitively end combat, at most, 10-12 minutes after the victim decides to "check out".
Skippidipp NorCorp Enterprise No Holes Barred 10	Posted - 2012.01.13 07:41:00 - [117] - Quote Scrapyard Bob wrote: Skippidipp wrote: Or make it simple. Aggression = no self destruct Which runs into the problem of - you get aggressed in a ship/pod, away from a gate, the attacker decides to just hold you there in place for an hour or two. Self-destruction is a legitimate way of saying "screw you, I'm not going to play your game". Now, if you want to make it that you can't self destruct if you have an active outbound 15-minute aggression timer, then maybe. But I would put the timer at more like 5-minutes before you can start the self-destruct timer, with the larger ships having timers up to 5-7 minutes long. Which would definitively end combat, at most, 10-12 minutes after the victim decides to "check out". Than make the pod an exception. So yea, if you are in a ship they can hold you until you eject, or shot you. But in pod, you can self destruct as normal. Problem solved.
Simi Kusoni HelloKittyFanclub 31	Posted - 2012.01.13 07:45:00 - [118] - Quote Skippidipp wrote: Scrapyard Bob wrote: Skippidipp wrote: Or make it simple. Aggression = no self destruct Which runs into the problem of - you get aggressed in a ship/pod, away from a gate, the attacker decides to just hold you there in place for an hour or two. Self-destruction is a legitimate way of saying "screw you, I'm not going to play your game". Now, if you want to make it that you can't self destruct if you have an active outbound 15-minute aggression timer, then maybe. But I would put the timer at more like 5-minutes before you can start the self-destruct timer, with the larger ships having timers up to 5-7 minutes long. Which would definitively end combat, at most, 10-12 minutes after the victim decides to "check out". Than make the pod an exception. So yea, if you are in a ship they can hold you until you eject, or shot you. But in pod, you can self destruct as normal. Problem solved. Personally I'd rather not just be held in space until I eject from my ship because my would-be-killer wants a new T3 Extending timers to a sensible length, fine. Getting rid of them completely is just asking for it to be abused. Although I do want a new T3...
Lord Zim Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 510	Posted - 2012.01.13 11:40:00 - [119] - Quote If you're self destructing and you're aggressed, produce killmail. If the self destruct mechanism is activated when your ship goes pop (be it through the self destruct timer or the other guy shooting you dead), no insurance payout. Fight it out like a man or get pussywhipped like the ***** you are.
Kwashi Adhocracy Incorporated Adhocracy 1	Posted - 2012.01.13 12:15:00 - [120] - Quote Zarak1 Kenpach1 wrote: Aamrr wrote: Just a voice of consideration. Denying insurance payouts to self-destructing ships has a very real effect on wormhole space. Sometimes self-destructing isn't really voluntary... I generally agree with the thread, otherwise. can you give an example please? Ship marooned without probes due to crashing accident or enemy trickery comes to mind. Not sure that kind of situation represents a "very real effect" compared to the much more common use of this mechanic in wormspace - i.e. torching one's own hardware to keep one's lossboard clean when one is losing a battle. Generation of mails only for SD while under 15min combat timer seems reasonable to me.

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last 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.