Jump to content

Self-Destruction - KA-BOUM!!!!! - Last Resort for Unarmed Ships Under Attack to Prevent Looting


Hirnsausen

Recommended Posts

Self-destruction devices are successful parts of many other great SciFi games, like Eve Online. They make it a bit harder for PVP fans, and I hink, a number of PVP fans do not really belong into PVP space based on their big tears that their vicims can hurt them back a litle bit. ?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
On 11/10/2021 at 5:53 PM, Hirnsausen said:

Self-destruction devices are successful parts of many other great SciFi games, like Eve Online. They make it a bit harder for PVP fans, and I hink, a number of PVP fans do not really belong into PVP space based on their big tears that their vicims can hurt them back a litle bit. ?

 

1) I don't recall self-destruct in eve being anything more than a way to pod yourself with an in-universe explanation as to how.

2) Any pvp player with the capacity for forethought knows that taking a ship in to pvp means they may lose that ship, so please don't sit there and insult the pirates with the suggestion that they are afraid to lose their ships, it just makes you look disrespectful and not worth listening to.

3) An AOE that does not require target-lock does not work well with a system that needs target lock due to client-side operations.

4) An AOE that does not require target lock may as well be useable anywhere without restriction, as "unarmed and being shot at" takes no effort to achieve with all of two people, and could depending on how it works potentially be managed with just one. (a lot of folks may be dumber than bricks, but there are a lot of smart folk out there too who's first thought is always "how do I break this to win").

5) An AOE that requires target lock but still has the capacity to significantly cause harm over and above all other weapons will still be a horribly imbalanced weapon that will get abused to no end.

6) If you want to hurt the pirates back, try bringing friends and fitting weapons like most pirates do. 

---If your counter argument is any form of "I'm a solo player but still should be able to win against teams because balance" then it is automatically wrong for incentivizing solo-play in an mmo, and because if it did work that way then instead of a team working against you, you'd just be facing a bunch of solo-players that all happen to share a discord and have decided to gang up on you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/28/2021 at 1:11 AM, Taelessael said:

 

 If you want to hurt the pirates back, try bringing friends and fitting weapons like most pirates do.

 

 

No, I do not wish to become a PVP player. I leave violence to others, and don't want to become like them.

Self-destruction had great balancing effects in EVE. But I understand, that the PVP lobby does not like at all the idea of more balance...   ? ? ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Hirnsausen said:

 

 

No, I do not wish to become a PVP player. I leave violence to others, and don't want to become like them.

Self-destruction had great balancing effects in EVE. But I understand, that the PVP lobby does not like at all the idea of more balance...   ? ? ?

 

Have you then considered hiring guards? Or scouts? Or just bribing the pvp players to leave you alone? Have you considered out-flying the pvp players? Or out-smarting them? It isn't exactly hard.

 

As for balance, you fail to understand the concept.

A pvp player risks perma-losing their stuff, a pve player does not, there for a pvp player gets better rewards.
A pve player willing to risk the perma-loss of their stuff should get the same rewards as the pvp player if they meet the same conditions- in this case not gaining the loot of a wreck because they didn't kill it, not losing their ship, perhaps making off with some pvp space-ore if they find it, or getting the pay for a mission through pvp space if they complete it.

 

This is balance.

 

A pve player asking for a weapon of mass destruction to use against pvp players isn't a pve player, they are just a pvp player that wants an "I'm not going to win, there for nobody else should be allowed to" option. This isn't balance, it is just being a sore loser.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think, like in real life, any interaction between two persons shouzld be based on the agreement of both (or all) involved persons.

But at least, if violence gets awarded (as in so many games), then I would want that the opposite should also have some sorts of aards, maybe some areas that cannot be accessed by players that have a security rating below a certain threshold, or some ore or some elements or some research that is possible only for high security level players. As I said, peacefulness should get awarded,too, not only vilent behavior. But that is stuff for another thread.

Here in this thread, I still continue to express my wish for a detonation device.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. PvP is already very low-rewarding in DU compared to fuel/cells/ammo costs required to make a succefull encounter

They even disabled the access to build mode in combat lock to exactly prevent what you are suggesting, because people were trashing their ships under attack just to make shure pirates will get nothing. Your idea sounds like "I don't like to get killed in PvP-oriented game so let's make PvP so non-profitable that I can safely go out"

2. There IS a way you can make your trip into PvP space more safe - you can simply hire an escort to defend you. This is an MMO game, it SHOULD encourage people to communicate and play as a team.

 

On 9/28/2021 at 2:14 AM, Hirnsausen said:

Basically, such a self-destruct mechanism needs to follow some rules:
- it can be installed on unarmed vessels only
- it cannot be ignited if there is no armed ship around
- it cannot be ignited if tha ship was not being fired upon before

 

Have you tried to think how your limitations can be avoided?
I already see a Bomber Desing that is an S-core ship with a res node and a bunch of docked XS that I can undock at any moment, shoot from my S core and blow it up, returning back to res node on the S-core ship, repeating this process until everyone around are dead.
Your idea not going to add any balance, but only will add more exploitable mechanics, less reward for any player that decides to go PvP.

If you don't like PvP or don't like risking your loot - stay in safe zone, there are plenty of activities you can do there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Hirnsausen said:

I think, like in real life, any interaction between two persons shouzld be based on the agreement of both (or all) involved persons.

You seem to not understand the nature of the internet and on-line gaming.  I't's not supposed to be like "real life".  If you don't like PvP, stop going to the PvP zone.  Don't try to get the game changed simply because you don't like it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We are not talking about chaning the game, but about enhancing it, so man more player types will like it. This now might be something YOU don't seem to understand.

Look, DU has at the moment 4,000 players worldwide. Many more players would be beneficial. So why to cut out all the other player typs just for the sake of those who do like destruction but not game enhancements?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/2/2021 at 3:42 AM, Hirnsausen said:

Look, DU has at the moment 4,000 players worldwide. Many more players would be beneficial. So why to cut out all the other player typs just for the sake of those who do like destruction but not game enhancements?

that's what the safezone is there for - noone forces you to enter pvp zone. and noone forces all the other potential players to go there either. dont like pvp? then stay away from it

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/1/2021 at 8:42 PM, Hirnsausen said:

We are not talking about chaning the game, but about enhancing it, so man more player types will like it. This now might be something YOU don't seem to understand.

Look, DU has at the moment 4,000 players worldwide. Many more players would be beneficial. So why to cut out all the other player typs just for the sake of those who do like destruction but not game enhancements?

Whatever.  You are dragging this topic through the mud.  Bottom line, as everyone has been trying to explain is this: if you don't like PvP, stay of out that zone.  There is plenty of space and things to do in PvE.  If you don't like that, play something else.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/1/2021 at 6:42 PM, Hirnsausen said:

We are not talking about chaning the game, but about enhancing it, so man more player types will like it...

 

... Look, DU has at the moment 4,000 players worldwide. Many more players would be beneficial. So why to cut out all the other player typs just for the sake of those who do like destruction but not game enhancements?

 

What you ask for is not an enhancement, and would change the way combat works entirely... because you want to have the option of flipping the table and burning the game pieces when the game isn't going your way.

 

DU is not catastrophically missing out on players just because piracy is a permitted part of the game in locations known to everyone that pays any attention and that can be easily avoided.

 

On 11/30/2021 at 7:56 PM, Hirnsausen said:

I think, like in real life, any interaction between two persons shouzld be based on the agreement of both (or all) involved persons.

But at least, if violence gets awarded (as in so many games), then I would want that the opposite should also have some sorts of aards...

 

Real life doesn't work that way, there are a lot of interactions in the real world that go entirely against the desires of one or more of the parties involved in them, such as: war, crime, gambling, accidents, politics, religion, economics, voting, planning with more than a single knowledgeable person involved, and so on.

 

 Benefits of peaceful play: not having to risk losing a ship in pvp zones if you don't want to, having a reputation as not going to backstab and shoot your hired escorts, having to not waste huge amounts of time and resources just for the chance that someone else will let you do what you want to do, and perhaps even let you break even with the subsequent loot.

 

If you want to go in to pvp space without getting shot, and without shooting, then what you need is friends to do the shooting for you, or hired escorts to do the same, not an ill-conceived game-breaking weapon with a token limitation that can be easily circumvented.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/27/2021 at 4:44 AM, decom70 said:

Problem is, the way you describe it, it would just turn PVP into nonstop suicide runs.

 

It has reverse based PvP aspects as well if you time it right.

 

I made a suggestion on this a while ago.

 

If you fight a ship and you dont die in the initial attack you should be able to initiate a self destruct sequence so that if timed right it not only blows up all the elements on the ship to do more damage and repair costs but it should still be lootable but offer the ship being attacked one last chance to get their ship back if they lost in the first wave, completely blow up all their elements which would just destroy them unless they have 2/3 strikes and remove the elements permanantly via the destrictible elements system with PvP. But it also allows for the attacked ship to time it just right to possibly damage the attacking ship or to blow up the boarding party if they are on the ship when the self destruct sequence goes off.

 

It has a bit of strategic elements to it since you still get to loot the ship unless the elements are destroyed with destructible elements which is already a thing but at the same time it should make you think twice about the ship having an active sequence ticking down. But also that when you claim the core you should have to find the self destruct sequence element to turn it off which creates another layer of complexity and traps or hiding the button to turn it off sicne it has to be seen to activate and found to disable the self destruct sequence so the ship suddenly does not explode an hour, day, or up to a week later with a silent alarm self destruct sequence and cause the PvP crew to have to sweep the ship in case the Element is on board.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is a pleasure to see how the suggestion of a self-detonatin device gets so many responses, indeed not all against it, and even motivates more plyers to develop their own cncepts about devices for self-detonation. Thanks for your input, Warlander.

And I encourage all others of you players to come up here with your own ideas of the interesting self-destruction device. Let's make DU more interesting, let's add new possibilities to it! Don't be afraid of the PVP lobby.   ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If there is a self-destruct device.
It has to be added to a mechanism that prevents people from destroying objects in a container.


The self-destruction will have a triggering timer of a few tens of minutes.


If it comes to an end it will destroy your ship and its cargo.

But only your ship.
(wanting to destroy other ships with Auto Destroy is a bad idea and will never be added to the game).

 

Of course after the explosion we will be able to recover the voxels and the elements remaining on the ship.
If the attacker destroys the ship before it self-destructs it cancels it.

 

Anyway, it's a non-priority mechanism (I think we can talk about it again in 3/4 years), but it will always leave the advantage to those who want to arm themselves conventionally.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/15/2021 at 3:02 AM, Knight-Sevy said:

If there is a self-destruct device....

Hi, I think, you misunderstood the purpose of the proposed self-destruct device. Imagine, someone says that guns or missiles should not cause damage. So, why then to have them? Same with the self-destruction device. Like in the oh´ther games that feature self-destruction devices for ships, here too the SDD needs to be destructive. As a counter-measure to pirate attacks. To add more balance, as it poses now some just risk to the attacker on that unarmed ship that all loot is gone or even that he too gets damaged or destroyed. Just nothing else than some balancing for those who do not want to arm their ships.

In real life, there are many examples, too, for destroying hardware so criminals or enemies cannot have it. Think about the Blackhawk helicopters that were detonated inside hostile areas after they crash-landed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Hirnsausen said:

Hi, I think, you misunderstood the purpose of the proposed self-destruct device. Imagine, someone says that guns or missiles should not cause damage. So, why then to have them? Same with the self-destruction device. Like in the oh´ther games that feature self-destruction devices for ships, here too the SDD needs to be destructive. As a counter-measure to pirate attacks. To add more balance, as it poses now some just risk to the attacker on that unarmed ship that all loot is gone or even that he too gets damaged or destroyed. Just nothing else than some balancing for those who do not want to arm their ships.

In real life, there are many examples, too, for destroying hardware so criminals or enemies cannot have it. Think about the Blackhawk helicopters that were detonated inside hostile areas after they crash-landed.


 

This system has nothing to do on a game like sorry dual universe.

You can have a self-destruct system to kill you and you alone and that's it.
Everything else is a bunch of nonsense to suppress gameplay mechanics you don't like.

This is definitely a bad idea.

Like 100% of the people who commented here:

It will be a big NO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/17/2021 at 5:53 PM, Knight-Sevy said:

You can have a self-destruct system to kill you and you alone and that's it.

 

If you accept, that your weapons kills just you and you alone and that's it, then it would be fair and I agree. ? ? ?

But as long as you want to distribute destruction and losses, you have to allow others to do something similar to you.
There need to be a balancing if it comes to attacking unarmed ships. You are so afraid of risks for yourself and don't want to accept that risky action should bear ... risks.

Edited by Hirnsausen
Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Hirnsausen said:

If you accept that your weapons kill just you and you alone and that's it, then it would be fair and I agree. ? ? ?

But as long as you want to distribute destruction and loss, you have to allow others to do something similar to you.
There need to be a balancing if it comes to attacking unarmed ships. Stop being such a wheepy child and accept that risky action should bear ... risks.


 

Yes you use a weapon like everyone else.

 

You show that your idea has no interest.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Hirnsausen said:

...
There need to be a balancing if it comes to attacking unarmed ships. Stop being such a wheepy child and accept that risky action should bear ... risks.

 

And here we are again, dragging this thread through the mud by strait out insulting people when they call you out because you are blatantly asking for a poorly thought out and exceedingly overpowered weapon of mass destruction with which to retaliate against anyone that shoots at you.

 

4 hours ago, Hirnsausen said:

... Imagine, someone says that guns or missiles should not cause damage. So, why then to have them? Same with the self-destruction device. 

In real life, there are many examples, too, for destroying hardware so criminals or enemies cannot have it. Think about the Blackhawk helicopters that were detonated inside hostile areas after they crash-landed.

 

Military helicopters aren't armed with self-destruct devices in the hopes that if they some how go down near a hostile, they can pull a "taking you with me". At most they may be blown up or set fire to in order to deny hostiles any salvage/intel. This isn't what you are asking for. What you are asking for is functionally permission to keep a nuke in your lamborghini so you can retaliate against some common criminals that might try to car-jack you while you drive carelessly through the worst part of town. 

 

Literally everyone that spends any time considering this knows it is a bad idea, and knows exactly why you are really asking for it, regardless of what you try to tell them it is for. Please stop pretending this has anything to do with balancing the game. If you don't want to potentially be a pvp target, stay in the safe zones, and only travel outside of them by warp.

 

If you want the rewards only available to those willing to fly through pvp space, recognize that you can lose your ship, that this risk is very intentionally part of the game, and that your refusal to use the very intentionally included part of the game that would force pirates to also risk losing their stuff attacking you isn't a balance issue, it is your decision to make it so they don't have any risk attacking you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/17/2021 at 11:06 PM, Taelessael said:

And here ...

If you followed the thread, you will recognize that there are other gamers who support this suggestion.  But I understand that you do not want any risk for yourself while you want at the same time have all advantages against unarmed ships. There are many different way to counter destructivity and violence, weapons are not everything that matters (here the NRA might have a problem with). I self, living in a very violent Caribbean country where I hear at least in 3 to 4 nights a week the sounds of distant gun fire, and the sounnds that badly injured or dying people make. In REAL LIFE, I have absolutely no desire to extent the violence I see each day into games, on my part I mean. I hate weapons, because I see what terrible things they can cause. My neighbor has one leg only, the other leg was lost due gun violence. So, please allow me, to have a very strong resentiment against violence and weapons. I know, that many people are fascinated by weapons ad usage of them, even in games - something "exciting" for them. I somehow believe, you will easily shrug off all arguments I make, because all these things never affected you, and because you like the excitement of violence. Am I right? I probably am. No insult meant. I know, many worldwide enjoy real or digital violence. It pays even, in games as in real life.

And again, do not misunderstand me - if violence lovers attack armed ships, I have no problem with that. Totall okay even. But for those who  do not wish to be part of that "gun lobby" there MUST be alternative ways to counter. I am talking here about unarmed ships, as only those should be able to carry SDDs, and can activate them only after having been attacked. If that causes unbearable horror and traumatizing nightmares for you, I a so sorry,

Edited by Hirnsausen
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/20/2021 at 2:54 AM, Lethys said:

calling a ship with a self destruction device which could potentially kill dozens of others around it "unarmed" is quite the leap xD this guy is so hilarious, I can't stop laughing

Nice to see you laughing. Yes, that's the right way to go through life. ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/18/2021 at 9:14 PM, Hirnsausen said:

*Calling naysayers pvp players, claiming to live somewhere near gunfire and wounded people, claiming opponents of the idea don't live near gunfire and wounded people, claiming to mean no insult, and then insulting opponents.*

 

Your mental gymnastics need work dude, way too easy to follow. 

 

Also, claiming to be strongly opposed to violence and weapons while simultaneously asking for a giant bomb to violently blow all the players you don't like to bits is an amusing argument, but a rather poor one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Taelessael said:

 

Your mental gymnastics need work dude, way too easy to follow. 

 

Also, claiming to be strongly opposed to violence and weapons while simultaneously asking for a giant bomb to violently blow all the players you don't like to bits is an amusing argument, but a rather poor one.

forget it, this guy is beyond arguments. he will never get why this is a bad idea. Nor seems to get why his arguments are VERY poor

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Lethys said:

forget it, this guy is beyond arguments. he will never get why this is a bad idea. Nor seems to get why his arguments are VERY poor

 

That much is obvious, and that NQ has disallowed build mode during pvp (presumably to prevent bugs/exploits and keep people from entirely deleting their ships during combat so as to deny pirates any loot) implies that they wont allow this idea either. But, I don't think he's willing to leave the last post to a detractor of the idea (hence the insults he likes to throw when people disagree). Also I want to see what absurdity he comes up with next to try and justify a weapon that functionally invalidates all other weapons and nearly every pvp-related play style.

 

Oh, and Hirnsausen...

 

Scenario A (collateral): Two pirate ships appear on your radar, the first shoots the second, the second triggers the self-destruct you are talking about adding and blows your ship up with those two, then a 3rd moves in from its position a safe distance away to loot everything and deploy new ships if your mechanic leaves any wrecks to loot, and the 3 of them just taunt you in chat for flying so carelessly if it doesn't, because the only people that will be left regularly doing pvp in the way you are trying to make unplayable if your bomb was included will be either pirates (if there is loot), or those who's only goal is to just wreck your stuff and then laugh at you (if there isn't loot). 

 

Scenario B (no collateral): Two pirate ships appear on your radar, one shoots you, you self-destruct, the second moves in and loots the wrecks (if there are any) and deploys a new ship for the guy that shot you, then they move in to loot everything if your mechanic leaves any wrecks to loot, and the 2 of them just taunt you in chat for flying so carelessly if it doesn't, because the only people that will be left regularly doing pvp in the way you are trying to make unplayable if your bomb was included will be either pirates (if there is loot), or those who's only goal is to just wreck your stuff and then laugh at you (if there isn't loot). 

 

Any actual logical counter? Or will it just be another attempt at appealing to emotion in the hopes that nobody thinks too hard about it, along with one or more insults to myself (a mission runner btw) and/or pvp players?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...