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.

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?

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 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

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 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 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.

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.

This is why I feel kill mails should just be removed

Eviction was real. Just saying if someone self destructs in a worm hole to me I should be able to shoot the guy.

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.

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?

HTFU and stop complaining about people being intelligent in this game. Bob knows we have enough F1 monkeys to go around.

I am not complaining about anything. I am just agreeing with the OP that this situation isn't consistent with the general mechanism for self-destructing things.

If CCP wants to be consistent they should change it. If they have better things to do then fine with me. Did you read through the comments in that thread I linked though? Five years ago there was almost universal agreement that dodging killmails by self-destructing was a bad thing and something that needed to be fixed. Nothing has changed that I can see, and letting it continue, when it could just be a line or two added to the tethering code to fix it, just because it has always been that way in POSes is a poor argument.

Whatever, it bothers me not either way. But I do find the quickness to resort to 'HTFU' without a single reasoned argument supporting why it is better to allow people to dodge killmails in this thread quite amusing. The OP has a point, and just because things have always been sort of broken in POSes isn't a reason not to address it. If there is a valid reason why the game is better for keeping the ability to dodge killmails while tethered I would be happy to hear and consider it.

I am not complaining about anything. I am just agreeing with the OP that this situation isn't consistent with the general mechanism for self-destructing things.

This is COMPLETELY consistent with self destructing in POS's mechanics already in place, in terms of being able to self destruct while invulnerable to deny assets and 'GF's to people sieging your stuff. That's not broken. That's what the POS bubble is for, a little bubble in space you or your stuff can't be shot in.

so if i undock lock nothing and self destruct nothing is inconsistent



also friends and i went to sisi to find out that you can bump a carrier outside of tether range in under two minutes even if the carrier is trying to push back. since all you need is to activate one aggressive module for a KM to generate its entirely doable.

No, it is completely inconsistent with self-destruct mechanics everywhere else in the game. Sure, it might replicate POS functionality, but there is no reason that it should. It doesn't add anything to the game, and only gives players an out from suffering the consequences of being outplayed while providing nothing of value to the game.

I don't care either way. I would not be surprised if CCP left it this way because it really doesn't change much, but I would be equally unsuprised if at some point down the road they decide to plug the get-out-of-a-killmail hole that tethering now provides.

I am not sure why you are so worked up over such a non-issue. Killmails, while useful as a tangible memory of some in-game event, are already not perfect intel and open to error and manipulation, as they still would be if tethering shut off when you started your self-destruct. They are just a limited, but official record of what went on the game that doesn't directly impact the game in any way. The OP raises a valid point, and it is now up to CCP to decide if they want to fix the loophole that allows players to self-destruct ships without generating a killmail, or whether they think it not worth the effort to change the status quo.

Yelling HTFU at me or the OP isn't really much of an argument.

It is inconsistent. If you are cornered in space and decide to self-destruct because of my blockade, but I cannot lock you because of a giant magic space beam, you get out of a killmail even though my group induced you to explode. This ability to avoid a killmail adds nothing to the game. There is no reason that the game is better because it exists. In fact, all the same reasons the self-destruct mechanics were changed in Inferno still apply. There is nothing unique about this situation that merits a special rule, and while we might have had a special rule for the last few years because of how POSes worked, there is no reason that should continue.

As for bumping out of tethering range, wasn't the plan to include an anti-bumping effect for tethered ships? Did CCP give up on that? If so, that is already a change from the POS situation that you two are holding up as some sort of gospel that must be forever maintained just because it was once so. That said, I am still pretty sure CCP still plans to implement an effect that prevents bumping of tethered ships before they completely remove POSes. Maybe that would be a good time to add the tether shut-off for a self-destructing ship?

Whatever, I don't care. The ship is lost either way and while I love a killmail as much as the next guy, they really don't have much concrete meaning in the game beyond an imperfect source of intel and bragging rights. The OP is correct however that this isn't how killmails work everywhere else, and more importantly, there is no good reason why ships tethered to structures (or inside POSes) should have some special exemption. Any such exemption was just a side-effect of how POS shields worked, and if we can improve the consistency of killmails by just having the tether turn off when the destruct sequence starts, I am all for it.

well it does add something to the game and it does not have the same effect your post showing how little you care is proof of that

Eviction was real. Just saying if someone self destructs in a worm hole to me I should be able to shoot the guy.

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.

And there is no reason why a tether should shut off simply because you start the self destruct sequence.

One has to ask if this whole process of being able to self destruct a ship while it sits in perfect safety somewhere is such an issue to you why have we not heard or seen you complain about people doing it inside POS shield?
Or is there some space magic difference between doing it inside a POS shield that makes it OK but doing it while tethered is not.

Can't we just celebrate that content and player interaction was had and not quibble like children over petty details??

You all need to HTFU - they are just killmails.

... what... what do you expect me to do with my day then

This statement applies equally well to everything you have said too.

Why does it matter if a killmail is generated? The ship is dead, the eviction was a success. Why does the killmail matter?

I am fast coming around to the 'remove all killmails' point of view thanks to threads like this.

I know, it was irony.

It doesn't matter. Not even in the slightest. Yet the avalanche of HTFU and harumphing that went on in this thread directed at the OP because he dared suggest some killmails should be generated that weren't was unbelievable. As was the inability of anyone to justify why the game would somehow be better if people kept the right to self-destruct things to avoid appear on a killmail despite all their tsk-tsk-ing.

If it takes CCP more than a handful of developer hours to change this they shouldn't do it. It is inconsequential. But if CCP has the chance to make killmails slightly more accurate and comprehensive now that tethering is replacing the POS spaghetti code, why not?

Killmails aren't totally without value though. Five years ago self-destruct-to-avoid-killmail was big enough an issue that CCP did something about it to near complete support of the player-base. However, the edge-case we are discussing here is not important. The fact is the vast majority of killmails are still generated, including one for the structure the OP was sieging.