Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Mendolus
Aurelius Federation Apotheosis of Virtue
|
Posted - 2009.06.15 16:38:00 -
[1]
Hey guys,
I have been doing a lot of thinking about a topic that comes up fairly often, logoffski. Logging off from the game in order to escape, confuse, avoid or prepare for combat, or laying traps has become quite popular these days.
Given the prevalence of the logoffski trick in EVE seems to be ever increasing, do you think this trick as it were, being a player invented mechanic, is merely a way for player's to imitate a delayed mode local window?
Given the increasing popularity of this trick, do you think it will become inevitable that CCP will implement delayed mode local windows in null security simply because player's have already created an artificial game mechanic that mimics this behavior to the only degree that they can?
Regards, Mendolus
{...and they will respect a line drawn in the sand more than forgiveness} |
Danton Marcellus
Nebula Rasa Holdings
|
Posted - 2009.06.15 16:50:00 -
[2]
Edited by: Danton Marcellus on 15/06/2009 16:52:21
Simple solution, once you log/disconnect, warp you back to the same place 50% of the times and to a random spot near a stellar object 50% of the time upon re-connecting.
That way you can still get your man if you're hunting someone half the time and they may not dare it but rather take the fight when they know what they have in place rather than get scattered.
It would also cause quite some strain on gangs logging off camping something and then when they're supposed to re-engage only half show up where they're supposed to.
It adds some risk to the practise and is by no means a flawless solution but it sure as hell beats the current mechanics.
Should/would/could have, HAVE you chav!
Also Known As |
Jagga Spikes
Minmatar Sebiestor tribe
|
Posted - 2009.06.15 16:51:00 -
[3]
Edited by: Jagga Spikes on 15/06/2009 16:52:06 i fail to see how logoffski leads to delayed mode local. care to elaborate?
btw, haven't people found a way to deal with logoffski? i think i read something like it on eve-tribune.
edit: oh, did you mean logon trap?
|
Carnelian X
|
Posted - 2009.06.15 16:55:00 -
[4]
Originally by: Jagga Spikes Edited by: Jagga Spikes on 15/06/2009 16:52:06
btw, haven't people found a way to deal with logoffski? i think i read something like it on eve-tribune.
no
|
Sir Muffoon
Backdoor Enterprises
|
Posted - 2009.06.15 17:02:00 -
[5]
How about when you log back in, you don't warp back to the place you were before you logged off, you just get teleported there after 10-20seconds. (this can be adjusted on how long it takes for players to become active in the game)
This stops players from logging-in/logging off repeatedly so that eventually they're not logging back into where they logged off the first time. |
Carnelian X
|
Posted - 2009.06.15 17:09:00 -
[6]
Edited by: Carnelian X on 15/06/2009 17:09:47 Log On Trap:
The process where one or more players will log out of game at a specific postion in space with the intention of baiting an engagement whilst local looks safe, then logging back on, auto warping back to the same spot where they can engage the enemy.
This is what the OP was talking about.
Logoffski:
Any process where logging off avoids a fight. Normaly done upon jumping into a camp and still cloaked.
This is what the OP refereed to the Log on trap process as being named |
Armoured C
Gallente Federation of Freedom Fighters Aggression.
|
Posted - 2009.06.15 17:15:00 -
[7]
Edited by: Armoured C on 15/06/2009 17:14:48 Please visit your user settings to re-enable images. |
Mendolus
Aurelius Federation Apotheosis of Virtue
|
Posted - 2009.06.15 17:18:00 -
[8]
Originally by: Carnelian X
Log On Trap:
The process where one or more players will log out of game at a specific postion in space with the intention of baiting an engagement whilst local looks safe, then logging back on, auto warping back to the same spot where they can engage the enemy.
This is what the OP was talking about.
Logoffski:
Any process where logging off avoids a fight. Normaly done upon jumping into a camp and still cloaked.
This is what the OP refereed to the Log on trap process as being named
Carnelian has the right idea.
Think about it, delayed mode local allows for an even more player controlled environment in null security whereas there is not this artificial mechanic that lets you know the moment a player enters the system.
CCP has already tested the waters in wormholes with this mechanic but I have not seen any additional chatter about it for weeks.
Disregarding the artifact of having your ship removed from the game itself, focus on the primary effect, the player's name disappears from local and unless you have eyes in adjacent systems, or have added them to your address book, you do not know whether they left the system or logged.
This is as closed to delayed mode as a player can get in null security, and as common as it has become, do you think there will ever come a time where it is prevalent enough to the point that CCP has to implement delayed mode in null security because players are already using a player invented mechanic to imitate delayed mode?
{...and they will respect a line drawn in the sand more than forgiveness} |
Aurora Nyx
Caldari Federal Defence Union
|
Posted - 2009.06.15 17:45:00 -
[9]
Edited by: Aurora Nyx on 15/06/2009 17:46:46 @ Danton Marcellus
And what happens when the crappy server lets go of your connection as you gate, you restart uncloaked away from the gate. With the gameplay as it is atm, some fleets losing members to lag while jumping or while fighting, this is a very bad idea. Be careful on how you propose some things get fixed, the solutions usually cause more problems.
Normally the only people that complain about the "logoffski" tactic, are those intent on ganking at gates, and their victims get away.
|
Razin
The xDEATHx Squadron Legion of xXDEATHXx
|
Posted - 2009.06.15 19:07:00 -
[10]
Edited by: Razin on 15/06/2009 19:07:50 Well, CCP Zulupark promised something on delayed Local by Q2 of this year. That is, something on SISI.
I'm still hoping this could be released as one of the features of the fabled 'summer expansion'.
Edit - thread title is misleading. |
|
FlyinS
Caldari Planetary Industry and Trade Organization
|
Posted - 2009.06.15 19:54:00 -
[11]
Originally by: Carnelian X
Originally by: Jagga Spikes Edited by: Jagga Spikes on 15/06/2009 16:52:06
btw, haven't people found a way to deal with logoffski? i think i read something like it on eve-tribune.
no
A way to defeat logoffski (and repeated logoffski to continually change position) was posted recently (can't find it at the moment). It takes practice and luck, but it can be done.
|
Triksterism
z3r0 Gravity YARRR and CO
|
Posted - 2009.06.15 19:56:00 -
[12]
Bubbled and engaged a CVA freighter the other day, only to have it disappear. QQ ------------------------
|
Spurty
Caldari Ore Mongers BricK sQuAD.
|
Posted - 2009.06.15 20:01:00 -
[13]
mechanic exists for those that aren't trying to avoid a fight, but their internet connection went down.
Should not be changed because every loss from a gate camp suddenly becomes 'petitionable'.
Can't wait for delayed mode in local.
5k players online at peak sounds great fun!
Originally by: Cat o'Ninetails hi cat here
i was thinking earlier about corpses...
|
Danton Marcellus
Nebula Rasa Holdings
|
Posted - 2009.06.15 20:13:00 -
[14]
Originally by: Aurora Nyx Edited by: Aurora Nyx on 15/06/2009 17:46:46 @ Danton Marcellus
And what happens when the crappy server lets go of your connection as you gate, you restart uncloaked away from the gate. With the gameplay as it is atm, some fleets losing members to lag while jumping or while fighting, this is a very bad idea. Be careful on how you propose some things get fixed, the solutions usually cause more problems.
Normally the only people that complain about the "logoffski" tactic, are those intent on ganking at gates, and their victims get away.
I'd rather see fleets having to adapt to rearguard action, picking up its stragglers than logging as it stands being a supreme tactical tool.
Should/would/could have, HAVE you chav!
Also Known As |
Carnelian X
|
Posted - 2009.06.15 20:29:00 -
[15]
Originally by: FlyinS
Originally by: Carnelian X
Originally by: Jagga Spikes Edited by: Jagga Spikes on 15/06/2009 16:52:06
btw, haven't people found a way to deal with logoffski? i think i read something like it on eve-tribune.
no
A way to defeat logoffski (and repeated logoffski to continually change position) was posted recently (can't find it at the moment). It takes practice and luck, but it can be done.
The method you are talking about took
15 guys working in shifts 72 hours Sloppy Freighter Pilot
Whilst I applaud the tenacity of those pilots, having 15 pilots working for three days just to catch one known and admitted cheat is not balanced.
He also made a mistake, which lead to his capture.
|
Anubis Xian
Reavers
|
Posted - 2009.06.15 20:57:00 -
[16]
You shouldn't be rewarded for logging off.
Originally by: CCP Oveur The client handles no logic, it is simply a dumb terminal.
The AB/OD Fix |
Jobby
Minmatar UNITED STAR SYNDICATE
|
Posted - 2009.06.15 21:18:00 -
[17]
Originally by: Anubis Xian You shouldn't be rewarded for logging off.
I log off every day. Where's my prize? :P |
Anubis Xian
Reavers
|
Posted - 2009.06.15 21:37:00 -
[18]
Originally by: Jobby
Originally by: Anubis Xian You shouldn't be rewarded for logging off.
I log off every day. Where's my prize? :P
Hmmm...
Here is Estamel's Modified Warp Core Stabilizer. |
Jobby
Minmatar UNITED STAR SYNDICATE
|
Posted - 2009.06.16 00:34:00 -
[19]
Edited by: Jobby on 16/06/2009 00:34:46
Originally by: Anubis Xian
Originally by: Jobby
Originally by: Anubis Xian You shouldn't be rewarded for logging off.
I log off every day. Where's my prize? :P
Hmmm...
Here is Estamel's Modified Warp Core Stabilizer.
Edit - gotta love that forum bug. |
Lochmar Fiendhiem
Caldari International Multi-Player Consortium
|
Posted - 2009.06.16 02:48:00 -
[20]
so this is another "remove local" whine post then? |
|
Pigeon Racer
|
Posted - 2009.06.16 09:33:00 -
[21]
Edited by: Pigeon Racer on 16/06/2009 09:34:43 Why is local chat even still in the game? It's about the most silly thing in the game bar the whole pathetic 'bumping' business. It makes no sense at all, in warfare a side or person should have to work to find who is in the system instead of being handed it on a plate in the form of a window listing exactly who is in the system. Some form of 'IFF' system for ships would be far more intelligent and plausable then the current system - you could scan with your IFF (indentification Friend or Foe) and if you get no positve returns you know you are in a system with people who are hostile. Anyone with an interest in military aircraft will get where i'm coming from as thats what i'm basing the concept on. (though I fully realise it would never be implemented as it means people would actually have to think a bit instead of having it handed to them on a plate) |
Eddie Gordo
Minmatar Masuat'aa Matari Ushra'Khan
|
Posted - 2009.06.16 10:42:00 -
[22]
Decent guide on how to deal with loggoffski
Podlogs | Pluggit |
temponita
|
Posted - 2009.06.16 11:13:00 -
[23]
Originally by: Spurty mechanic exists for those that aren't trying to avoid a fight, but their internet connection went down.
Should not be changed because every loss from a gate camp suddenly becomes 'petitionable'.
Can't wait for delayed mode in local.
5k players online at peak sounds great fun!
Since Apocrypha, my client has crashed at least a dozen times during missions. If the system hadn't warped my ship to safety, I would of lost it, again and again and again... It's one thing to drop out of a mission sue to client crashes, but it's quite another to loose your gear over it!
If CCP didn't have this failsafe, there's no doubt a large number players would stop playing. And having people wait for bug fixes in Eve, could very well be the equivalent of just closing there accounts! :p
It's not a perfect system(by far), but it's better than the alternate! |
Raquel Smith
Caldari Freedom-Technologies Initiative Associates
|
Posted - 2009.06.16 12:19:00 -
[24]
Originally by: Mendolus Hey guys,
I have been doing a lot of thinking about a topic that comes up fairly often, logoffski. Logging off from the game in order to escape, confuse, avoid or prepare for combat, or laying traps has become quite popular these days.
Given the prevalence of the logoffski trick in EVE seems to be ever increasing, do you think this trick as it were, being a player invented mechanic, is merely a way for player's to imitate a delayed mode local window?
Given the increasing popularity of this trick, do you think it will become inevitable that CCP will implement delayed mode local windows in null security simply because player's have already created an artificial game mechanic that mimics this behavior to the only degree that they can?
Regards, Mendolus
That is so 2 years ago.
Don't forget "player invented mechanics" of
- POS spam
- High sec suicide ganking
- Scamming
- Spamming
- Spying
And so on...
-- Creator of The Ruby API Library |
Intense Thinker
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2009.06.16 12:35:00 -
[25]
I like my original idea that if you log off in space your ship just stays put and right there in space until you come back and dock it |
Chris Liath
Gallente Nex Exercitus Executive Outcomes
|
Posted - 2009.06.16 12:37:00 -
[26]
Originally by: Danton Marcellus Edited by: Danton Marcellus on 15/06/2009 16:52:21
Simple solution, once you log/disconnect, warp you back to the same place 50% of the times and to a random spot near a stellar object 50% of the time upon re-connecting.
That way you can still get your man if you're hunting someone half the time and they may not dare it but rather take the fight when they know what they have in place rather than get scattered.
It would also cause quite some strain on gangs logging off camping something and then when they're supposed to re-engage only half show up where they're supposed to.
It adds some risk to the practise and is by no means a flawless solution but it sure as hell beats the current mechanics.
This seems actually like a good solution. |
Lady Spank
Amarr Sekret Kool Klubb
|
Posted - 2009.06.16 12:46:00 -
[27]
changing the logoff mechanic to randomly put you in space on reconnect would be massively abused. |
Mendolus
Aurelius Federation Apotheosis of Virtue
|
Posted - 2009.06.16 14:30:00 -
[28]
Originally by: Lochmar Fiendhiem so this is another "remove local" whine post then?
If enough people engage in a particular behavior that results in an unintended game mechanic, should CCP either combat that behavior, or implement the game mechanic?
This ^ is a whine to you?
{...and they will respect a line drawn in the sand more than forgiveness} |
Mendolus
Aurelius Federation Apotheosis of Virtue
|
Posted - 2009.06.16 14:44:00 -
[29]
Edited by: Mendolus on 16/06/2009 14:44:59
Originally by: Raquel Smith
That is so 2 years ago.
Don't forget "player invented mechanics" of
And so on...
- POS spam - CCP is still looking into this, no?
- Suicide Ganking - perfectly within the game mechanics
- Scamming - perfectly within the game mechanics
- Spamming - just like every other MMO
- Spying - perfectly within the game mechanics
POS spam is a perfect example of what I am asking about, CCP is still looking into a fix for POS spam to my knowledge, just as they are looking into delayed mode for null security which is why they implemented it in wormholes to see how well it would be received by the playerbase. The nano nerf is as well. CCP did not intend for nano combat to take over the game, but player's eventually used it that way to the point of absurdity, so they had to address the issue (although it took them forever).
{...and they will respect a line drawn in the sand more than forgiveness} |
Anubis Xian
Reavers
|
Posted - 2009.06.16 15:11:00 -
[30]
Originally by: Mendolus
Originally by: Lochmar Fiendhiem so this is another "remove local" whine post then?
If enough people engage in a particular behavior that results in an unintended game mechanic, should CCP either combat that behavior, or implement the game mechanic?
This ^ is a whine to you?
Given CCP's history on exploits, they would make it a feature.
Originally by: CCP Oveur The client handles no logic, it is simply a dumb terminal.
The AB/OD Fix |
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |