Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Strak Yogorn
Amarr Mind Warpers
|
Posted - 2008.04.16 07:00:00 -
[31]
Originally by: Rabid Rich lets try the shoe on the other foot shall we carebears?
how would you feel if you worked your way through a level 4 mission and then the boss rat at the end selfdestructed just before you get to him thus making it impossible to complete the mission? oh and all your collected loot and salvage was erased too....
cause that is what it is like for a pvper gang that has an enemy carrier self destruct as it goes into low structure
so anyone not agreeing with you are automagically carebears ? selfdestruct are a valid mechanism, guess you just have to bring more dps ?
|
Albaluna74
|
Posted - 2008.04.16 08:55:00 -
[32]
self-destruction=no insurance. u want to deny km and loot? it's fine, but u shouldn't get insurance.
imo if u r popped by concord, u shouldn't get an insurance.
|
Cpt Branko
Surge. Night's Dawn
|
Posted - 2008.04.16 09:01:00 -
[33]
Edited by: Cpt Branko on 16/04/2008 09:01:29
Originally by: Strak Yogorn
so anyone not agreeing with you are automagically carebears ? selfdestruct are a valid mechanism, guess you just have to bring more dps ?
If your answer to everything is 'blob moar!', well... you've really said it all.
Maybe you're one of the carebears who flies in organized fleets?
Sig removed, inappropriate link. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint |
Dingo
|
Posted - 2008.04.16 09:22:00 -
[34]
Oh come on please the guy's just lost a carrier/fitting and you'r crying becasue he pressed the self destruct button? How dare he deny you your rightful loot and killmail, he should of just sat their twiddling his thumbs while you slowly chewed through his remaining armour and structure HP. IF you want your loot and killmail then may I suggest you kill it quicker next time.
|
Calyce
Gallente
|
Posted - 2008.04.16 09:33:00 -
[35]
Actually, that would be a good idea. self destruct == no insurance.
but then also make concord kill == no insurance as well :)
|
Velox Idolon
|
Posted - 2008.04.16 10:16:00 -
[36]
Originally by: Ragoul Gurmok Just make self destruction only for pods :P
Because you wouldnt really put a high powered explosive device on something you want to survive in coz it would explode during combat even if you were winning.
Remove selfdestruct for everythig but pods.
and btw remove trash from the right click menu for all but rookie ships and civ gear its annoying as hell being half asleep and trashing something useful......
self destruct = overload reactor core :P
|
Julia Newmatar
Caldari Perkone
|
Posted - 2008.04.16 10:41:00 -
[37]
Originally by: Rabid Rich Edited by: Rabid Rich on 15/04/2008 16:46:46 not true. self destruct is not there to deny the Kill Mail to the enemy AFTER they have broken you. if you want to deny Kill Mails to the enemy it should be at the cost of having to initiate self-destruct before they have won the fight.
i don't expect PvE'rs to agree, but PvP is a legitimate way of earning Kill Mails in this game. to outplay someone in a highly capable ship because they made poor tactical deciscions, and organise enough dps together to actually kill the thing after you have trapped it, and then still have them self-destruct with the sole intention of denying you the hardwon Kill Mails only once they have seen they have absolutely no chance of a reprieve....that is bad gameplay design.
by all means initiate self destruct in your carrier the very moment a lone interceptor tackles you... but the upside/downside balance to that particular choice is not generally worth it.
Fixed it for you, Or in short "I wan't my killmail", I'm pretty sure that if the kill mail system did not exist you would not have had any issue with an enemy using a tactic like this
|
PCaBoo
Mutually Assured Distraction
|
Posted - 2008.04.16 11:37:00 -
[38]
Originally by: Julia Newmatar
Fixed it for you, Or in short "I wan't my killmail", I'm pretty sure that if the kill mail system did not exist you would not have had any issue with an enemy using a tactic like this
lol? I just remembered why I stopped posting here. ________________________________ Stop nerfing everything! |
Adaris
|
Posted - 2008.04.16 11:41:00 -
[39]
Perhaps adding a feature (globally applicable to all ships) whereby ships cannot initiate a self-destruct if they have taken more than 50% armor damage/similar...? It could be rationalised as 'a Catastrophic systems failure preventing Self-Destruction protocols from initiating until sufficient repairs can be made to ammend the problem.'
As a side note to this, I would also like to see a ship's self-destruct having an area of effect damage modifier to those around it (regardless of same gang/corp/alliance status, i.e. smartbomb-ish) *******
I speak on behalf of every corporation. |
Ms Vanity
Caldari Hulk Industries
|
Posted - 2008.04.16 11:50:00 -
[40]
Look at it this way, when a pilot knows his ship is going down, he has 2mins to run around with a baseball bat and destroy every mod so it doesnt fall in enemy hands.
You on the other hand have 2 mins to breach the hull so he can no longer run around with said technology protection device.
|
|
Venkul Mul
Gallente
|
Posted - 2008.04.16 12:02:00 -
[41]
Edited by: Venkul Mul on 16/04/2008 12:03:17
Originally by: Adaris Perhaps adding a feature (globally applicable to all ships) whereby ships cannot initiate a self-destruct if they have taken more than 50% armor damage/similar...? It could be rationalised as 'a Catastrophic systems failure preventing Self-Destruction protocols from initiating until sufficient repairs can be made to ammend the problem.'
As a side note to this, I would also like to see a ship's self-destruct having an area of effect damage modifier to those around it (regardless of same gang/corp/alliance status, i.e. smartbomb-ish)
The option to self destruct (scuttling) for military vessels is generally available for large ship and it is meant to be used when the ship ism unable to combat to avoid the capture of the vessel.
So it is build to work when the ship is critically damaged.
|
PCaBoo
Mutually Assured Distraction
|
Posted - 2008.04.16 12:35:00 -
[42]
Originally by: Venkul Mul
The option to self destruct (scuttling) for military vessels is generally available for large ship and it is meant to be used when the ship ism unable to combat to avoid the capture of the vessel.
So it is build to work when the ship is critically damaged.
lol? Pray tell, which modern ship has a scuttle button?
________________________________ Stop nerfing everything! |
Cpt Branko
Surge. Night's Dawn
|
Posted - 2008.04.16 12:38:00 -
[43]
Originally by: Julia Newmatar
I'm stupid and don't understand the concept of loot.
Fixed it for you.
Loot is the major issue and the reward you get when you kill expensive things. Killmails are nice, but, ehem, you aren't going to buy new ships using killmails and such.
Sig removed, inappropriate link. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint |
Matrixcvd
Caldari Rionnag Alba Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2008.04.16 12:52:00 -
[44]
Either remove self-destruct while taking damage or Drop loot from self destruct
its very simple. People who are using the "Kill it with MOAR SPEED" are really just siding with the victim. People who think its ok to have a game mechanic not help the aggressor are LAME and are true Bearcares.
Why should items disappear just because someone was in a bigger ship? If its on grid and fighting, the same consequences for the carrier/dread should be EXACTLY the same for all participates in combat.
|
Anaalys Fluuterby
Caldari
|
Posted - 2008.04.16 17:00:00 -
[45]
Scuttling a ship to prevent its capture or looting from an enemy has always been a valid tactic IRL.
If it is depriving you of making ISKies, then I say it is a valid counter to you attacking to begin with. Perhaps ransoms and such are supposed to be more prevalent? I doubt they would blow up a 1+ billion ship if you offered ransom for less than replacement costs of ship and modules. But then your mighty killboard suffers.... |
Paper Airplane
Mutually Assured Distraction
|
Posted - 2008.04.16 20:50:00 -
[46]
Edited by: Paper Airplane on 16/04/2008 20:53:54 As far as I can tell those who disagree are citing one or more of the following reasons: 1) encouraging blobs is a better alternative 2) self destruct -- as it is now -- is just like real life, and therefore better 3) PVP should not be a valid source of income
do you guys seriously not see the flaws in these claims? |
Gamesguy
Amarr D00M. Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2008.04.16 20:53:00 -
[47]
Originally by: Anaalys Fluuterby Scuttling a ship to prevent its capture or looting from an enemy has always been a valid tactic IRL.
If it is depriving you of making ISKies, then I say it is a valid counter to you attacking to begin with. Perhaps ransoms and such are supposed to be more prevalent? I doubt they would blow up a 1+ billion ship if you offered ransom for less than replacement costs of ship and modules. But then your mighty killboard suffers....
IRL when you scuttle a ship you dont get a nice insurance company reimbursing you for it. Actually IRL you dont get insurance on combat vehicles at all but thats a different point.
All the people that say the attackers only want a km is completely wrong. Everyone I know who had a carrier self-destruct on them just writes up a km and posts it anyways. Its standard practice.
AFAIK self-destructed carriers also dropped loot. So the only reason one would self-destruct is so YOU dont have to post the lossmail. |
Ephemeron
Cutting Edge Incorporated RAZOR Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.04.16 21:00:00 -
[48]
as far as insurance goes, I believe that all ships bigger than t1 cruiser should not be covered by any insurance.
Only noobs in frigs and t1 cruisers should have coverage. |
Athos Zel'tar
Amarr
|
Posted - 2008.04.16 22:32:00 -
[49]
Originally by: PCaBoo
Originally by: Venkul Mul
The option to self destruct (scuttling) for military vessels is generally available for large ship and it is meant to be used when the ship ism unable to combat to avoid the capture of the vessel.
So it is build to work when the ship is critically damaged.
lol? Pray tell, which modern ship has a scuttle button?
Actually, US submarines have what is called the "Destruct Bill" that would be implemented in the event that the ship is caught unable to submerge and surrounded by hostile forces. Essentially, the crew runs around breaking everything on the ship that is classified (most of the ship, actually ) so that the enemy cant get any of our vital secrets. I don't see why we can't have a suitably future-tech method of doing the same thing with our futuristic pretend ships
|
Gamesguy
Amarr D00M. Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2008.04.16 22:38:00 -
[50]
Originally by: Athos Zel'tar
Originally by: PCaBoo
Originally by: Venkul Mul
The option to self destruct (scuttling) for military vessels is generally available for large ship and it is meant to be used when the ship ism unable to combat to avoid the capture of the vessel.
So it is build to work when the ship is critically damaged.
lol? Pray tell, which modern ship has a scuttle button?
Actually, US submarines have what is called the "Destruct Bill" that would be implemented in the event that the ship is caught unable to submerge and surrounded by hostile forces. Essentially, the crew runs around breaking everything on the ship that is classified (most of the ship, actually ) so that the enemy cant get any of our vital secrets. I don't see why we can't have a suitably future-tech method of doing the same thing with our futuristic pretend ships
The difference is the submarine doesnt have a bunch of explosives planted in it ready to blow at the captain's command.
Thats what eve's self-destruct is.
Personally I think activating self-destruct should turn off all your modules and recall all your drones. |
|
Athos Zel'tar
Amarr
|
Posted - 2008.04.16 22:41:00 -
[51]
True, but the net effect is still the same- the enemy is denied the spoils of the attack. That is the central problem, is it not? As I said before, all it is is a ramped-up version of the aforementioned "Destruct Bill" |
Gamesguy
Amarr D00M. Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2008.04.16 23:17:00 -
[52]
Originally by: Athos Zel'tar True, but the net effect is still the same- the enemy is denied the spoils of the attack. That is the central problem, is it not? As I said before, all it is is a ramped-up version of the aforementioned "Destruct Bill"
What makes you think the crew attempting to wreck the electronics and burn the sensitive information is anything like the complete destruction of a ship?
The enemy still captures the ship itself, the reactor, weapons, etc. |
Msgerbs
Gallente White Moon Industries
|
Posted - 2008.04.16 23:22:00 -
[53]
Edited by: Msgerbs on 16/04/2008 23:23:14
Originally by: Gamesguy
Originally by: Athos Zel'tar True, but the net effect is still the same- the enemy is denied the spoils of the attack. That is the central problem, is it not? As I said before, all it is is a ramped-up version of the aforementioned "Destruct Bill"
What makes you think the crew attempting to wreck the electronics and burn the sensitive information is anything like the complete destruction of a ship?
The enemy still captures the ship itself, the reactor, weapons, etc.
And let's not forgot that EVE is fake...
I see self-destructing to deny loot as greifing. The only time it is acceptable is in war, where your loot will come back to bite you. |
Chomapuraku
Caldari Templar Republic R0ADKILL
|
Posted - 2008.04.17 01:02:00 -
[54]
Originally by: Ms Vanity Look at it this way, when a pilot knows his ship is going down, he has 2mins to run around with a baseball bat and destroy every mod so it doesnt fall in enemy hands.
You on the other hand have 2 mins to breach the hull so he can no longer run around with said technology protection device.
^ thread winner
i think denying the enemy loot is the point of self-destruct. sounds like the 2 minute warning is a valid tactic to me. you catch a carrier off guard with a ragtag force not worthy of a full-out battle, he gets to deny you the loot. solution? moar firepower!!! |
DigitalCommunist
Obsidian Core
|
Posted - 2008.04.17 01:45:00 -
[55]
You, along with half the people in this thread, have stupidly missed the point.
The main point of self destruct ISN'T to deny your enemy loot. The main point of self destruct is to have an exit strategy when you are unable to do anything else and the enemy isn't finishing you off.
Its an anti-grief mechanic.
The 2 minute timer was introduced after to FIX the problem of everyone abusing it to deny their enemy loot. This was 2003, where a battleship has 4-5k shields and everyone is stacking damage mods because tanking is such a joke. You were lucky to last 30 seconds, let alone two minutes. Since then, survivability has increased ten fold and the timer has not.
Most of the time 2 min is fair enough
This does not apply to capitals with the ability to absorb nearly a million damage. Your DPS has to be excess of 10,000 to be on the safe side. That can take anywhere from 15 to 30 people.
EVE has so many people flying capital ships that most losses are going to happen on a smaller scale, not some epic fleet event.
Personal opinions on the matter are irrelevant; either we allow people to easily blow up their loot, or we don't. CCP chose not to, and it makes zero sense for them to ease up on the rules just because you're flying a more expensive ship. There has to be consistency.
I would rather not remove the 'destroys your loot' aspect of self-destruct, because it adds some realism. But that would be an easy fix. A better fix is to base the time to self destruct on your ships capacitor size. It makes sense that bigger capacitors might take longer to overload and stuff.
Can the rhetoric about PVPers and carebears, I've heard it before. The way it works now is an affront to consistency and logic, not your EVE religion. |
Gavin Darklighter
THE FINAL STAND
|
Posted - 2008.04.17 03:39:00 -
[56]
If the captain wants to self-destruct, he should go down with his ship. Hey, if you are denying the killmail for the ship you should deny the killmail for your pod too and just die when the ship explodes. |
Cpt Branko
Surge. Night's Dawn
|
Posted - 2008.04.17 09:50:00 -
[57]
Originally by: Chomapuraku solution? blob moaaaar!!!
Fixed.
May you lose a thousand pods because your grid didn't load. |
spudz k
|
Posted - 2008.04.17 11:42:00 -
[58]
When did carebears move out of mining barges in highsec into carriers in low/null sec |
sliver 0xD
exiles.
|
Posted - 2008.04.17 11:49:00 -
[59]
Edited by: sliver 0xD on 17/04/2008 11:51:29
Originally by: Rabid Rich lets try the shoe on the other foot shall we carebears?
how would you feel if you worked your way through a level 4 mission and then the boss rat at the end self destructed just before you get to him thus making it impossible to complete the mission? oh and all your collected loot and salvage was erased too....
cause that is what it is like for a pvper gang that has an enemy carrier self destruct as it goes into low structure
as a pirate i would CRY LESS & GET BIGGER GUNS!
honestly i do not see anything wrong with the self destruct timer.
if it took you 2 min to kill a carriers hull. that means you probably were with a small fleet and the solo pvping carrier who should be experienced could not kill any of your ships. expecting you probably had him jammed. witch makes a 1bil ship fail over a 100mil falcon or arazu. i would say that should be fixed.
for you a special example, thats a navy issue raven getting killed by a cruiser npc :P
--- Somebody needs a hug! |
mamolian
Eternity INC. Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2008.04.17 12:28:00 -
[60]
Originally by: DigitalCommunist I agree with the OP. Its the same reason they put 2min timer in the first place. At one point in time, SD was instant. And the moment you got caught and knew your ship was going down, you could activate it to deny the pirate/enemy of any loot. This is the same thing, only in a ship you can't kill fast enough during smaller scale fights.
SD is a countermeasure for someone pinning you, and not letting you go, but not killing you either. It isn't a tool to deny people loot drops just because you were stupid and got caught.
Galavet does not seem to share this view? Perhaps you and him should sit down and /discuss. -----------
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |