I never lie in forums (this doesn’t preclude mistakes of course).
Of course I only read the first line of your post, because nothing else in it could possibly be interesting to me. To the extent I remember your nick (probably only a day or two TBH /lol), I won’t read anything else you post.
You’re doing the same thing as an earlier poster - essentially providing my arguments for me.
There must already be a “gratuitous EVE insult” for “killmail collector” too?
If not: “stats collectors” are just another kind of farmer. They’re probably all ex-Farmville players /lol.
I don’t see why other players should be obliged to accommodate farmers.
Drac
Some comments on your reply, in reverse order:
I know, but my objective isn’t to change the minds of “PvPers” who are motivated to fight by some kind of reward. And there are much more efficient ways to get such people to contradict themselves 
My suggestion is exactly what it seems: something I’d like to see in EVE that has no obvious downside, and some obvious positive side-effects.
Regarding exceptions:
I might have edited the post you replied to, but the final version includes this:
The game can easily handle any case(s) of ships that shouldn’t have a self-destruct button.
I agree with that part of your response (more or less from this bit to the end):
Agree, but I’d expect it to be easy for CCP to handle - perhaps easier/cheaper for CCP than creating the self-destruct feature.
I wouldn’t be too surprised to find other examples where it wouldn’t be appropriate too (e.g. larger combat ships). e.g. I don’t see a downside to salvaging after a big strategic battle.
I’m not anti-ganking either. I had to learn to like it once, but that was long ago - my first trial, over ten years ago.
That doesn’t mean it’s perfect though, any more than enforced “balanced” PVP is perfect. For example “balanced” PvP isn’t compatible with owning or controlling territory - implementing “across the board” would destroy EVE.
This is just something I think would make EVE PvP a little better, without any significant negative side effects.
I think this:
would happen if the was a timer on the self-destruct. It’s why I’d like it to be instant.
In general, if I had a “magic wand” to make EVE friendlier for newer players, it would be to protect anyone who can’t “afford to fly what they can’t afford to lose”.
I don’t think a game mechanism could ever do that (no simple program could make suh a judgement).
The next best thing is to give the potential gank targets some anti-farmer options.
I don’t think people who just like to fight would even notice this change (with the possible exception of the “antimatter explosion” option, but that wasn’t 100% serious
New players have the least to lose. Protecting people from the ground up, early years, is not going to teach them how to survive. It only teaches them to be dependent on those who protect them, which is exactly what you want. It works in real life the same way it works in EVE.
You don’t want people to learn how to deal with things, you want them to be dependent on others doing it for them.
You’re a bad person.
Q.e.d. You don’t like other people’s gameplay, that’s why you want to remove it for your own personal benefit.
Solstice
You have a more serious problem with logic than thought /lol.
I suggest you read the text you quoted more carefully, especially:
BTW There’s a typo there - it should really read:
can’t “fly what they can’t afford to lose
but IMO the original is clear enough all the same.
In your rather deranged mind my logic obviously seems faulty.
Fact of the matter is that you want to protect people from losing stuff, which prevents them from learning from making mistakes.
Fact is that people learn from mistakes, because mistakes usually hurt. If they don’t hurt, they’ll keep making them over and over again.
Fact is that new players have the least to lose, therefore have it easiest to get back up and thus do not need to be protected.
Fact is that 99% of people, who lose stuff, lose it because they made a mistake. Maybe they didn’t tank, maybe they played afk, maybe they shouldn’t have blinged their ship mindlessly, maybe they shouldn’t have filled their hauler/freighter with more than they should. Maybe they shouldn’t be hauling billions worth of isk through a known gank pipeline, maybe they should have informed themselves about what’s going on around them. Maybe they shouldn’t fly what they can’t afford to lose, especially because it’s even written in the fact that it’s a dumb idea to do so. Maybe they’re just dumb and Darwin strikes them hard.
You don’t want people to learn from their mistakes, you want to make sure they don’t have to suffer from making any, which means they’ll never learn because they don’t have to.
You’re a bad person and a cancer for a healthy society.
Above I linked it to bumping that after x number of bumps you had this option, and that option disappeared at your next session change. It seems a nice way of dealing with bumping, and makes them jump on you at gates which is the game play I want to see happen. As most players would be happier to move around without the bumping risk they would get an increase in prey for more selective and riskier ganking.
That is the downside of my suggestion, but it could be handled at the client side only sending a flag to say ship has been bumped X-times in this session total self-destruct option possible, whether it was instant or had a timer is neither here or there, but more than sixty seconds would be a gift.
Salvaging a big fleet battle is very lucrative and I have done that. That is a good example.
I dabbled at AG, in the sense that I mainly did repping, I was going to do more but Endie’s intervention put paid to that.
I am not a fan of balanced PvP either, but overall game balance is what I look at. It is like all these people calling for the nerf of the Ferox, it is sad.
I think it is because for a lot of those type ganks it is pretty immediate, in other words I doubt that they would have a chance to implement even an instant self destruct in those cases.
Did you notice that one of the flunkies took what you said out of context and threw a general quote at you, they are that devoid of ideas and the ability to discuss. What he will also do is pretend to get into your head and put forward what he thinks you think. And his next post does exactly that, how predictable…
You said that it was not possible to do and I agree, but your idea of anti-farmer options is of course what most people who play Eve want.
Very true, and amusing…
You’re a wimp.
The only way I can even touch a module that would deny loot is if it had a very low chance of dropping ALL loot but in doing so carries with it an AOE two pulse damage blast like smart bombs that would also pod the pilot. This would mean that depending on ship types the gankers themselves might be destroyed before a successful gank by the pilot giving them a consider amount of killmails but leave all the loot, or a very low amount, up for grabs.
So it would be a gamble to see if youd get the first AOE, then a gamble if you would actually be able to destroy the ship before the second AOE which would effectively drop the loot to maybe 10-25% of value.
If the module malfunctions and you completed your gank in time you get all the loot, if not you either get nothing or 10-25% of the loot if you still complete the gank but not in time for the second AOE.
So not only is it a race to gank once the first AOE timer goes off its a % gamble to get all of the loot vs 10-25% vs none.
I would imagine a 10-20 sec delay between the AOE blasts and the second destroys the ship and the pilots pod along with doing damage again to surrounding ships.
Spitballing off the top of my head how to make it a lil mini game.
I am still not able to think of how a self destruct button would help make PvP more balanced or even instead of exacerbating the already existing overwhelming force that is generally employed. You might be able to crowd out a group of people who fall below a certain threshold of ‘overwhelming’ that depends on how long self destruct takes, I suppose. The shorter the time frame the attacker has to get his or her prizes, the more successful aggressors are going to rely on excessive force.
Now, I am not a PvP player so I don’t suppose I do understand their motives very well, but given how much money people waste on bounties, I can picture the system being used to de-motivate people who’s game play revolves around starting fights, and I don’t see this as being a thing we should shoot for if we want an interesting game to play.
I guess if someone wanted to put a bit of a kibosh on ‘unfair fighting’ they could put a self destruct feature on combat ships that they could use if they don’t have a weapons timer, but I think that if I wanted to make fair fights more accessible, I would make it so that people who were not super strong could afford to start a fight instead.
I appreciate that your reply to me was measured and polite (thank you!), but I still am no closer to seeing what benefit you want that this mechanic would give you.
Qia
This isn’t about balance or “fairness” as such, because one-sided PvP is natural for EVE. Perhaps “agency” is a better word (this definition):
I’d like to add something I won’t answer directly, so I’ll start with a question:
Can you think of any PVP situations in EVE where the attackers motive is against the (anonymous) person behind the character, rather than against the character itself?
BTW I know that plenty of gamers can’t see the difference, and I don’t mind that - but it’s relevant.
If your answer to the question above is yes, it might also give you the answer to two things
If it’s not clear, tell me your answer and I’ll try to fill in the blanks.
BTW - regarding the last line in your post. I always start out polite. I don’t get angry over discussions, but I use a “tit for tat” system, so sometimes I’ll write two replies in a row, one nice and one not so nice.
I doubt you and I will ever get into a “forum fight” 
Elena,
This game is chock full of warships because “interacting” with each other’s warships is the original idea of the game.
The language of interaction was intended to be “antimatter”… and pve was there to to create a time-grind expense in losing stuff to make losses meaningful (or, painful). (I.e. - I lost a ship and I mined for 6 hours to get it… boo, that sucks because I lost 6 hours)
We’ve been following your logic since about the start of 2012… pouring isk out on players at higher and higher rates so those losses won’t hurt so much… and making it harder to interact so those losses will be more rare.
The original game is so watered down it’s almost unrecognizable to those who loved it those years ago.
When you try to protect noobs from losses, all you’re doing is:
Quite literally, if the pve grind is the “pain” which makes ship loss meaningful… you’re confining noobs to that “painful grind” on the auspice of nobly protecting them from “risk”, the reward for which the rest of us tolerate the grinding.
You’re like the smiling bear outside a fair ride that tells children they can’t ride until they’re “this tall”. I’m the ride. It’s not me the noobs should hate, but you.
Noobs love me.
And you know what… let’s stop arguing it’s noobs we’re protecting. That bear now stops damn near anything from happening in highsec.
Noobs now quit the game without having ever witnessed or experienced a fight… they think the game is boring.
Maybe it is.
This idea is basically a “we both lose” button. It’s almost as game breaking as an “I win” button.
Wow what a doushbag. Gankers don’t gank out of purely selfish reasons? Loot, kill mails, content or whatever excuse your going with today? Gankers don’t want to hurt PvEers as a whole? I think the idea is good and deserves attention. Plenty of PvEers will be helped by this.
And you are obsessed.
Is that why we dont allow ganking in noob sistems?
Gankers gank for profits, to make money. Just like everyone else who plays the game in a way that allows him to make money. The only “doushbag” here is you.
We’re not trying to destroy your game, we’re trying to kill you in the game. All you suckers ever care about is trying to get rid of us as a whole, and we’re not even that many left.
If the difference between us shooting you in the game, and you trying to get rid of us outside of the game is too much for you to understand, then maybe ask someone smarter than you for help … or a therapist.
Noob spawn systems… I agree those should be protected.
However, noobs need to see PvP happening in order to see the game as alive.
The crackdown on fighting in the “profession” systems correlates with the decline in the playerbase.
I’ve argued before that simply having those elements visible (and as a threat you can opt into or out of) in systems noobs encountered created the backdrop that made pve Eve viable.
They have to see it before they get bored and quit… or they’ll think the whole game is about grinding functionally identical activities forwver.
You people offten claim that but in the last 10 years you have never been able to prove it.
