| Pages: 1 [2] :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Zaiyo Modi
Minmatar
   |
Posted - 2009.12.08 08:40:00 -
[31]
How about filing a bugreport first and get a response?
|
Raven03
tr0pa de elite
Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2009.12.08 09:48:00 -
[32]
agree..!
|
Sissy Fuzz
Amarr
Sissy Fuzz Communications
|
Posted - 2009.12.08 10:18:00 -
[33]
 Quote:
Currently low sec camps (and quite possibly any type of small camp) with a couple of people no longer work against anything that can tank that small gang for a minute and half. This means you HAVE to get together a big gang and basically blob. This is surely against CCP's aims?
As a matter of fact it is quite the contrary. CCP's goal is to make EVE unplayable unless you are in a *team* with other people where everybody fill specific *roles* that have been pre-defined by CCP. With no overlaps possible as per (ship) design. Of course this aim of CCP's has nothing to do with emergence or the sandbox which have become marketing bull**** weasel words. CCP cares about revenue and are optimising their product to provide the largest possible base of player accounts.
So, basically, those times are over where a couple of well skilled guys can get into their expensive T2 ships and go out roaming or wreaking havoc on some gate. In your case the "damage dealer" role was not filled. A HIC (tackling) and a CS (command/team bonus) is not enough against a BS - you need moar people.
Only news is that now you don't get to capitalize on a logoffski anymore, if the victim had no intention of aggression. Fair enough, tbh. As it is low-sec, and if we are to take the game background story seriously, you are not "allowed" to kill people there. So no reason for a game mechanic (that deals with loss of connection and not gate camps) to indirectly support the kill. Relates to the discussion about timers and docking games, obviously.
HTFU pirate whiners! You must become *team* builders before you can kill... 
|
drifter raas
Caldari
Lexicon.
|
Posted - 2009.12.08 11:11:00 -
[34]
Originally by: carebear one
dont support ...
get better but dont change eve to fullfill your insufficient skills
This so very much
|
Kroux
Caldari
HELLS REJECTS
Anarchy.
|
Posted - 2009.12.08 13:31:00 -
[35]
Well at least we know who the carebears are. and for the contrary low sec pirating is a mechanic to the game otherwise concord would kill you like in high sec. just because CCP tailors to the wimpy no balls carebears does not make it a fair game anymore in my opinion it is turning into WOW and soon you won't have any loss at all and then maybe your ship can do a little dance too.. So CCP stop tailoring to the new gay a$$ newbs who don't belong in 0.0. It took me my first year to get there when I started to get the skills to do something now you can be a day old and do ridiculous things. Be a little more rewarding to your long time subscription holders than new accts, your giving them way too much to start off with and we had to start from nothing.
If It Moves Shoot It!!!!! Pansy Carebear Blobbers
If it moves KILL IT!!!
Anarchy Killboard
|
Jhonen Senraedi
Minmatar
Dopehead Industries
Republic Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.12.08 13:55:00 -
[36]
Had both a freighter and an orca log off jumping gates and both times the targets were scrambled and aggressed...
Both times they disappeared and in one case a friendly vaga was popped by guns...(was against a red target not random piracy in low sec system that borders 0.0)..GM's said it was legit mechanic..
However..not sure it's right that a ship can be popped for aggressing a target that isn't really there..
Bottom line..CCP need to fix this so that any ship that is aggressed before it disappears from game through logging...gets the 15 minute aggro timer..
|
Skidmark Smellybum
|
Posted - 2009.12.08 14:00:00 -
[37]
Yo
|
Dengen Krastinov
Navy of Xoc
Wildly Inappropriate.
|
Posted - 2009.12.08 14:24:00 -
[38]
Edited by: Dengen Krastinov on 08/12/2009 14:23:56
Like goring cheating the hangman.
|
Hybschmann
|
Posted - 2009.12.08 15:07:00 -
[39]
I Agree 
|
Maxsim Goratiev
Gallente
Imperium Technologies
|
Posted - 2009.12.08 15:28:00 -
[40]
Originally by: Kobutsu
So, what happens when I jump in, ready to engage someone, and my client crashes, then I die to a client crash when I would have killed you due to superior fit/skills/tactics?
this
|
Mike Wittman
Minmatar
Digital assassins
|
Posted - 2009.12.08 16:59:00 -
[41]
Originally by: Maxsim Goratiev
Originally by: Kobutsu
So, what happens when I jump in, ready to engage someone, and my client crashes, then I die to a client crash when I would have killed you due to superior fit/skills/tactics?
this
In that case its like its always been, its your fault and not ccps and you don't get your ship back. If its ccps fault you get it reimbursed.
|
Glengrant
TOHA Heavy Industries
|
Posted - 2009.12.08 17:14:00 -
[42]
Originally by: De'Veldrin
I'm not sure how I feel about this proposal. The server code as written doesn't know if you disconnected or hit CTRL-Q. All it knows is it can't talk to your client anymore and it responds appropriately.
I have a hard time believing CCP doesn't know when Ctrl-Q gets hit - it's way too trivial to send a message on Ctrl-Q that would let the server know that it was an intentional quit.
The real problem is a faked network failure by disconnecting in other ways (killing eve client from task manager, pulling network cable, switch off router, etc...). That kind of thing can't be distinguished from a real network problem.
Getting the balance right between punishing those lamers who just log off when in trouble and players with real network issues who would rightfully be annoyed
by reconnecting to a clone in station without havhing any chance to do a thing is just not easy.
---
Save the forum: Think before you post.
ISK BUYER = LOSER
EVE TV- Bring it back!
Laptop, NVidia7900GS, Ubuntu 8.04, WINE |
Maxsim Goratiev
Gallente
Imperium Technologies
|
Posted - 2009.12.08 17:33:00 -
[43]
Originally by: Mike Wittman
Originally by: Maxsim Goratiev
Originally by: Kobutsu
So, what happens when I jump in, ready to engage someone, and my client crashes, then I die to a client crash when I would have killed you due to superior fit/skills/tactics?
this
In that case its like its always been, its your fault and not ccps and you don't get your ship back. If its ccps fault you get it reimbursed.
their simply has to be some sort of balance between the two. Game should not become impossible for people whose ISp is a F**ing B**CH and gives them unstable connection or has "technical problems" or "maintenance issues" every other day. Sometimes, that happens. And sometimes, you do not have any better isp in the are to switch to, because odds are if they had one, they already would.
|
Bagehi
Association of Commonwealth Enterprises
Gentlemen's Club
|
Posted - 2009.12.08 20:05:00 -
[44]
I think the difficulty is CCP is trying to fix multiple possible problems with one "solution". Several different experiences I've had regarding this:
1. Recently had three Ravens with names like "123y243" jump into a T2 L bubble, put DPS on one which died. Meanwhile, interceptors put webs and scrams on the other two so they couldn't get back to gate or get out of the bubble. Shortly after the first Raven popped, the other two were no where to be seen.
2. In a big fleet. FC gives the order to jump the gate and hold cloak. Everyone jumps. Cloak is held, when it times out, we begin to engage. At this point, a lot of people in the fleet start saying "still have a black screen/loading screen". So, our fleet was smaller than anticipated as well as having a chunk of ships immobile, uncloaked, and uncontrolled. Some did actually autowarp out. Some died without ever seeing the fight. I died horribly, but not because of connection/loading problems.
3. Camping. Freighter/frigate combo spotted inbound. Frigate jumps. Frigate decloaks and goes boom. Freighter pulls a jump-ctrl-q. We are furious. Vow on the blood of unborn children to kill him. We see him in local again for a few seconds before disappearing - doing the login/logoff stepping thing to get a safespot login. Scan him down, but his disappears before anything meaningful can be put on him. Rinse repeat. Rinse repeat. We take shifts in tacklers at the last logout spot for a few hours. Just before downtime, he's back but we can't get DPS on him fast enough before the server shuts down. After start up, the vigilant finally get him (unfortunately, it was way too late for me and I had gone to bed after the server shutdown).
4. Enter CVA space with a 20 man gang. Scout jumps to next system... into a 100+ blood thirsty defense fleet. We warp to a planet and send a second scout to the other gate... big ugly fleet sitting there as well. We log, thus avoiding what assuredly would have been a very bad end to a roam.
These are the "game mechanics". For 1,3,4 there should have been more blood. Because of situations like 2, a "solution" that allows 1,3,4 to happen exists. The solution sucks in all 4 cases. Whether it is OP's solution, previous CCP iterations, or the current solution - it sucks.
|
D0nnieDark0
Modi Operandorum
Scum Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.12.09 14:27:00 -
[45]
Edited by: D0nnieDark0 on 09/12/2009 14:27:45
Agreed,
I live in an area between large russian alliances, as they seem to be the main culprits i see this on a daily basis. When they do it right they become invulnerable and you cant lock them. They then simply log in and out a few times and fall in a safe spot off the gate. Becomes very frustrating when you follow a target more than 3 jumps and he keeps the same **** up.
|
Allan Sheperd
|
Posted - 2009.12.10 07:20:00 -
[46]
This mechanic is absolute crock at the moment, as it makes freighters running through low security nearly invincible which by no means should ever occur. However, I believe that there must be one small addition to your change. A message from the client should be sent when the grid is loaded correctly after jumping into a system, and only if this message is received from the client should the ship stay in space for some amount of time. This means that if someone legitimately crashes when going through systems, their ship will disappear in a short amount of time. However, no more people ctrl+q'ing when they see the camp and thinking oh shi-...
Under current mechanics a freighter running through low sec can only be destroyed on a gate if they quit after jumping by 17 pure gank bs (at slightly over 1k dps), or 4 dreads in siege mode. However, half the time you can't even lock the ships once the player logs out, and they become virtually invincible. Secondly, the ships still disappear when getting disrupted, and even under a bubble or focused warp disruption. This means that during the full duration of Apocrypha's release a freighter pilot pressing two buttons was more useful than a Tech III ships interdiction nullifier subsystem powered by super advanced ancient sleeper technology. Third, if a person logs out multiple times after quitting on the gate, they are able to get further away from the gate every time they log out. This means they don't even have to appear on the gate after logging back in.
Also I have heard about this but not tested it. Supposedly if you log onto an alt character from the same account, your ship will disappear immediately even with an aggression timer. I have yet to confirm this however.
According to CCP last time I checked, this is not an exploit. However, I fail to understand how freighters roaming through low security space freely without escort or worry of destruction is considered normal game mechanics. Infact, every time I see that advertisement of EVE with the minnie freighter getting blasted the only thing I can think of is "That pilot didn't know how to ctrl+q."
As obviously stated, I am in full support of ctrl+q NOT providing freighters immunity from gatecamps in both low and null security space.
|
Jimmi Bones
|
Posted - 2009.12.10 08:21:00 -
[47]
Support.
|
Jimmi Bones
|
Posted - 2009.12.10 08:29:00 -
[48]
Originally by: D0nnieDark0
Edited by: D0nnieDark0 on 09/12/2009 14:27:45
Agreed,
I live in an area between large russian alliances, as they seem to be the main culprits i see this on a daily basis. When they do it right they become invulnerable and you cant lock them. They then simply log in and out a few times and fall in a safe spot off the gate. Becomes very frustrating when you follow a target more than 3 jumps and he keeps the same **** up.
It was dubbed "loggofskis" for a reason  Though to be fair its not just the russians using them these days...
Its an exploit. How about keeping the logged off ship in space for at least 1 minute after everytime you log off regardless and introducing the former aggression mechanics like the OP mentions, then it becomes much less of an issue if you have good probers.
|
Bagehi
Association of Commonwealth Enterprises
Gentlemen's Club
|
Posted - 2009.12.10 19:16:00 -
[49]
Really, the easy fix is ditching this whole "super-warp after disconnect". Primarily, legit disconnects occur while jumping a gate into a lag-tacular event. Don't put the ship into a system until their client loads the system - keep it in limbo between systems. This way:
If it is caused by lag, they will eventually show up and start their cloak timer once they are actually in control of their ship.
If it is an actual disconnect during a jump, they will get their cloak timer once they log back in.
The only other time I've had (or seen) disconnects is when I'm sitting in space or a station without moving for a while (such as while waiting for orders from an FC - such as when springing a trap). In this case, a normal warp off and sit for 15 minutes (with aggro) wouldn't bug me any.
Conceivably, someone might be in a battle and lose connection from a storm or ISP outage. I would think the likelihood is very low, so the number of cases where this happens would be small. That's what petitions are for, not some game-changing solution. |
| |
|
| Pages: 1 [2] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |