Pages: 1 2 [3] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Khemul Zula
Amarr Black Plague.
|
Posted - 2008.12.17 03:01:00 -
[61]
Originally by: VoiceInTheDesert
Originally by: War Fairy
Quote:
No need to be a ***** about it. All I was saying is that this would fix some of the problem, but those really determined and technically savvy will avoid even the best attempts to "fix" this "problem" anyway.
Look if your post is self contradicting then I'm going to point it out. Especially when you claim an impossible problem is "pretty easy to solve."
Next up. Next up since you claim people will always get around these things. How are people getting around the 15 minute timer after they've been aggroed?
As I have now stated twice, my "pretty easy to solve" applies only to those not able or applied enough to get around the issue with task manager.
I didn't realize that I had to put all of my arguments in giant [disclaimer] brackets, I assumed people would read the whole post for what it was. I have acknowledged that the problem isn't fully fixable. I was merely saying that what I suggested is pretty much all that can be done and it would be pretty easy to do, but it won't completely fix the problem because CCP can't do something like lock a task manager remotely or check to see if this is being done.
[/me caring about this issue/thread]
Just give up now and admit it was a stupid idea to begin with. I won't bother to list the methods again, just go to page 1 and look for the post. Task manager is probably the most complicated and time consuming of the options available.
Really the only 'fix' for the problem is to punish anyone who logs off in space. Everything else can be defeated with a simple press of a button.
------ I can picture in my mind a world without war, a world without hate. And I can picture us attacking that world, because they'd never expect it. |
Sionn Klorgh
Minmatar The Collective Against ALL Authorities
|
Posted - 2008.12.17 03:39:00 -
[62]
yay!
|
Phelaen
Under the Wings of Fury Atrocitas
|
Posted - 2008.12.17 04:56:00 -
[63]
Edited by: Phelaen on 17/12/2008 04:57:08
Originally by: PeachesAndCream
Originally by: Farrellus Cameron If you think it should be changed, that's all fine and good, but it's not a bug.
No, it's not fine. People who don't even know the rules of EVE shouldn't be lobbying their uneducated opinions.
Opinions are like arsehols dude, everybody has got one
|
Zenomorphious
|
Posted - 2008.12.17 05:15:00 -
[64]
After chasing a freighter pilot for 2 flippin hours in lowsec who deliberately kept logging on and off to bunny hop thru systems im telling ccp now that something has to be done about players who deliberately abuse the logoffski game mechanic. Its way too easy for someone in a freighter to get thru lowsec without any hassles.....
Dont like what im sayin? go chew on someones shoe thats just stood in a barkers nest.
|
TheEndofTheWorld
Republic Military School
|
Posted - 2008.12.17 07:58:00 -
[65]
Originally by: Armoured C how about being better at pvp, if you have them pointed or bubbled, no amount of logoffski can help them
Do I really have to say anything about this...
Originally by: Dkorg
Nope. It's impossible to solve the disconnect problem. The rules apply equaly and fairly to everyone. Deal.
The recent pos "exploit" was fair to everyone, everyone could have used it, so the rule applies equally and fairly... so why was this changed/nerfed banned?
Nanoships were accessible to everyone, etc...
8/10 angel complex feature was available to everyone, so it was fair, right?
Everyone could have a dev in their corp/alliance, so it was fair, right?
Originally by: Tippia Don't want to lose your ship? Don't fight. Very very simple.
As for this ignorant idea of a "logoffski bug" ù if you didn't get the kill, you didn't deserve the kill. Stop moaning.
Don't want to lose your ship at gate? don't go to gates, very very simple...
The feature that BS+ ships have immunity to solo players/small gangs is an interesting feature, even though CCP is talking about keeping the importance of small gangs....
|
Myra2007
Perkone
|
Posted - 2008.12.17 08:53:00 -
[66]
Most people who abuse this mechanic at least admit that its broken from a gameplay viewpoint. (Talking about logging off a freighter in a small gate camp in low sec while under gate cloak for people like amoured w/e who apparently don`t even get it.)
Don`t really know why the people here get so worked up. No fear you are not going to be pvp¦ed against your consent any time soon. CCP is on your side so chill and let people discuss who actually play the game.
--
Originally by: kublai on Ankhesentapemkah That said, the "i'm a girl who plays your computer game and i'm not that ugly" has always been a certain winner in the mmo world
|
Garia666
Amarr T.H.U.G L.I.F.E White Core
|
Posted - 2008.12.17 09:17:00 -
[67]
This has even changed. people can now just disapear while there disrupted even with in a minute. www.garia.net |
Druadan
Aristotle Enterprises
|
Posted - 2008.12.17 09:29:00 -
[68]
Originally by: VoiceInTheDesert To me, this is pretty easy to fix. Just make a mandatory "confirm" window on shut down of the program. If this button is confirmed, then the timer for staying in space is...let's say 20 seconds (now you have at least 5 seconds to lock and get the aggression timer going).
If the confirmation is not done, then the standard auto-warp off to safety.
People who close the game and use loggoffski as a game mechanic lose their ships. Those who lose connection are still safe.
It won't stop people from just ending the program with task manager or something, but those people are *****es who will probably figure a way around any system that can be fairly implemented anyway.
The reason this and other suggestions don't work is because of how connection protocols work.
There are basically two types: TCP (stateful/connection-based) and UDP (stateless/connectionless, which I presume EVE uses for reasons explained further down). When a TCP connection is properly closed, the connection terminates with both sides (server and client in this case) agreeing that the connection is over and terminating gracefully. When a TCP connection closes due to the connection being broken by one side crashing or the route breaking due to a cable being removed, the connection terminates gracelessly and each side has to come to terms with that with no additional communication possible.
So when you hit Ctrl+Q, the client is able to communicate to the server that the user is intentionally logging off and the server can begin your emergency warp. If you terminate the process directly (through Task Manager) then the connection terminates gracelessly and the server can assume (though not safely) that you crashed or had network problems.
However, online games do not use TCP connections much because they carry with them a large overhead that affects the throughput of useful information between the client and server. Instead, they use UDP packets, and while I've never looked at what type of connection EVE uses, I'm assuming it is UDP. The difference is that TCP connections are like passing ping-pong balls down a length of hose to where you want them to go, whereas UDP connections are like switching out the lights and throwing the ping-pong balls toward their destination, hoping that they get to where you want. It's quicker, and due to the robust nature of packet-switching networks still quite reliable.
The problem with the UDP method is that while hitting Ctrl+Q still means the client can sent a datagram to the server indicating that you have initiated a log-off, if you cut the client off or terminate it gracelessly via Task Manager, no such communication is possible, and the server is left not knowing whether you're still there and just haven't been able to get any of your datagrams through recently, or you've disconnected due to a network problem or a crash. It's not practical for a server to count the milliseconds between datagrams from each client, with a view to being able to say "o ****" when you're late, and that's why when you pull your ethernet cable out while playing EVE, it takes a while even for the local client to figure out that you've disconnected.
Ain't no easy answer for the logoffski problem. I don't think it would be right to call it part and parcel to the game, as it's an underhanded practice, but nor is it fair to say that CCP could easily solve it and just haven't been bothered to. Sig removed, inappropriate content. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint |
Tippia
Caldari Raddick Explorations BlackWater.
|
Posted - 2008.12.17 09:55:00 -
[69]
Originally by: TheEndofTheWorld
Originally by: Dkorg Nope. It's impossible to solve the disconnect problem. The rules apply equaly and fairly to everyone. Deal.
The recent pos "exploit" […] Nanoships […] 8/10 angel complex feature […] Everyone could have a dev
Strawman since, no, they don't apply to everyone. An internet connection, and therefore connection issues, are universal. CCP has decided that people should not be punished for these issues. Suck it up.
Quote:
Originally by: Tippia Don't want to lose your ship? Don't fight. Very very simple.
Don't want to lose your ship at gate? don't go to gates, very very simple...
…except of course that combat has a very specific mechanic attached to it that is meant to promote the loss of ships. Gates do not.
Quote:
Originally by: Tippia As for this ignorant idea of a "logoffski bug" — if you didn't get the kill, you didn't deserve the kill. Stop moaning.
The feature that BS+ ships have immunity to solo players/small gangs is an interesting feature, even though CCP is talking about keeping the importance of small gangs....
If you didn't get the kill, you didn't deserve the kill. Your failure to apply proper tactics is not the fault of CCP and has nothing to do with the number of people ni the gang.
No sig for me, thankyouverymuch. |
Reacz
Caldari Havoc Violence and Chaos The Church.
|
Posted - 2008.12.17 10:07:00 -
[70]
Originally by: Druadan :O
You just repeated one whole part of my Multi-Service Networks module from Uni.
Funny thing is, I'd completely forgotten I'd learnt about it until I read your post. :D
|
|
Dkorg
|
Posted - 2008.12.17 11:52:00 -
[71]
Originally by: TheEndofTheWorld
Originally by: Dkorg
Nope. It's impossible to solve the disconnect problem. The rules apply equaly and fairly to everyone. Deal.
The recent pos "exploit" was fair to everyone, everyone could have used it, so the rule applies equally and fairly... so why was this changed/nerfed banned?
Straw man. One is a rule one is an exploit.
Cry some where else. If the non combat log off timer is extended you're just going to be here *****ing that you were killed by it.
|
SiJira
|
Posted - 2008.12.17 16:44:00 -
[72]
all our stuff should just stay right where it is and be controlled by npcs when we log off Trashed sig, Shark was here |
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 [3] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |