| Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Empire Vendor
   |
Posted - 2010.03.10 18:11:00 -
[61]
+1
|
Kadesh Priestess
Scalding Chill
|
Posted - 2010.03.10 23:33:00 -
[62]
 Originally by: Red Raider
You have never had a disconnect while zoning? Docked in jita 23/7?
I even had multiple losses due to disconnect, but i have balls to not whine and admit that it's my prob/prob of ISP and loss is legit.
|
Jeremey
Glittering Dust
|
Posted - 2010.03.10 23:47:00 -
[63]
Originally by: Kilostream
However, legit disconnects happen all the time
And so what? If CCP will fix these exploits, legit disconnects will happen all the time too.
Originally by: Kilostream
Besides if the problem were that severe there'd hardly be any kills in New Eden - a brief perusal of the various killboards available tells me that's not the case.
A brief perusal of current freighters' pilots actions tells us that these exploits are used by almost every freighter pilot in lowsec.
|
Red Raider
Caldari
Airbourne Demons
DeMoN's N AnGeL's
|
Posted - 2010.03.11 00:34:00 -
[64]
Originally by: Kadesh Priestess
Originally by: Red Raider
You have never had a disconnect while zoning? Docked in jita 23/7?
I even had multiple losses due to disconnect, but i have balls to not whine and admit that it's my prob/prob of ISP and loss is legit.
First, I never whined about anything you may want to look in a mirror to find that. I stated what CCP has already made perfectly clear, a 1 minute logoff timer is in place to reduce the chances of a legitimate disconnect resulting in the destruction of a players assets. The OP and the people supporting his first item are whining that 1 minute isn't long enough to kill a target. Anything can be killed in less than a minute if enough firepower is available but a player can't avoid legitimate disco which is why the rule exists. That doesn't mean I support people using this tactic to avoid losing assets but since doing so is considered an exploit then it is up to you to petition the offending party not me and everyone else to lose our ships because of a legitimate disco and you and yours not getting a kill because you were unprepared to dish out the firepower needed to pull it off.
So in summary. You have multiples avenues to deal with item 1 while legitimate disco's have no way to stop a legitimate disco so they shouldn't pay the consequences and CCP agrees.
|
HunterVolCh SPb
VolCh'ya syt
|
Posted - 2010.03.11 02:41:00 -
[65]
My English not very well for full discuss, but i signed.
|
Lilith Velkor
Final Agony
B A N E
|
Posted - 2010.03.11 05:30:00 -
[66]
Long overdue.
|
Morry Gun
|
Posted - 2010.03.11 09:53:00 -
[67]
Supported by all means.
|
Kadesh Priestess
Scalding Chill
|
Posted - 2010.03.11 09:57:00 -
[68]
Edited by: Kadesh Priestess on 11/03/2010 09:58:20
Edited by: Kadesh Priestess on 11/03/2010 09:57:44
Originally by: Red Raider
First, I never whined about anything you may want to look in a mirror to find that. I stated what CCP has already made perfectly clear, a 1 minute logoff timer is in place to reduce the chances of a legitimate disconnect resulting in the destruction of a players assets. The OP and the people supporting his first item are whining that 1 minute isn't long enough to kill a target. Anything can be killed in less than a minute if enough firepower is available but a player can't avoid legitimate disco which is why the rule exists. That doesn't mean I support people using this tactic to avoid losing assets but since doing so is considered an exploit then it is up to you to petition the offending party not me and everyone else to lose our ships because of a legitimate disco and you and yours not getting a kill because you were unprepared to dish out the firepower needed to pull it off.
So in summary. You have multiples avenues to deal with item 1 while legitimate disco's have no way to stop a legitimate disco so they shouldn't pay the consequences and CCP agrees.
If i'm flying ship with relatively small hp, this rule won't help me. If i fly a ship with some nice hp buffer - then i will use it in any camp where hp buffer is enough to survive 1 minute but not 15, and where i will be defeated anyway if i'll stay online and fight.
Considering this now i agree with point 1). Because this point doesn't prevent everyone from being destroyed in smaller ships (even if they had some *real* disconnect) and easily abused to avoid definite ship loss in bigger ships - something should be changed.
|
PRZ pm69
|
Posted - 2010.03.11 10:24:00 -
[69]
1) no
2)yes
3)yes
|
Khan Zung
SoT
|
Posted - 2010.03.11 11:02:00 -
[70]
I've tried these tricks several times but it doesnt't works. So lets remove them for everyone!
[url=http://terr.in/?a=pilot_detail&plt_id=39011]
[/url] |
|
|
Zula Rage
|
Posted - 2010.03.11 11:04:00 -
[71]
supporting it
|
Mind disruptor
|
Posted - 2010.03.11 11:09:00 -
[72]
signed
|
D'Ork
|
Posted - 2010.03.11 11:10:00 -
[73]
if my support means anything - you got it lol
|
ambasadorit
|
Posted - 2010.03.11 11:12:00 -
[74]
signed
|
Great Creator
Jacks of all trades
|
Posted - 2010.03.11 11:12:00 -
[75]
+1
Support
____________________________________________
omg... where i`m?? booo... drinking is very baad( |
WrathSama
|
Posted - 2010.03.11 11:53:00 -
[76]
agreed
|
DonBasss
|
Posted - 2010.03.11 12:06:00 -
[77]
signed
|
Steel Head
|
Posted - 2010.03.11 12:29:00 -
[78]
Agreed
|
Sarkat Kador
ZER0.
IT Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.03.11 13:07:00 -
[79]
First of all - propose some solution, not just identify exploits.
1) NO.
Increasing time to 90 or 120 seconds MIGHT be acceptable, but anyway losing a capital that logged off in an empty system just because some nice scanner found it after it logged off and cynoed in capfleet is idiocy.
2) Yes.
3) Yes.
|
Takeshi Taro
Drunk GanG
|
Posted - 2010.03.11 14:59:00 -
[80]
/signed for 2 and 3
|
|
|
Laechyd Eldgorn
Toy Factory
Exalted.
|
Posted - 2010.03.11 16:39:00 -
[81]
Supported. Most of mentioned things are pretty stupid and honestly don't have much to do with real connection problems.
I think you should be able to stop warp with some delay though. It has always annoyed me that there's no such feature to stop warp when you know you're obviously going to wrong place. There should be some delay so you cannot just click scanner and quit warp though.
|
veelzevul
Sacred Inquisition
|
Posted - 2010.03.11 17:23:00 -
[82]
/signed for 2 & 3
good idea
|
Ephemeron
Retribution Corp.
Initiative Associates
|
Posted - 2010.03.11 18:43:00 -
[83]
Originally by: Sarkat Kador
1) NO.
Increasing time to 90 or 120 seconds MIGHT be acceptable, but anyway losing a capital that logged off in an empty system just because some nice scanner found it after it logged off and cynoed in capfleet is idiocy.
2) Yes.
3) Yes.
Why wouldn't you log off your cap at the POS?
And if you are in hostile system with no support fleet and no friendly POS, maybe a cloak would be good idea. Or just cyno out to safety before you call it a day.
Otherwise, what prevents you from hitting that X button just as you see enemy dictors exit warp on top of you?
Nothing but your honor.
And even if you happen to have any, you can bet that a whole bunch of other people won't.
|
Red Raider
Caldari
Airbourne Demons
DeMoN's N AnGeL's
|
Posted - 2010.03.11 19:46:00 -
[84]
Originally by: Kadesh Priestess
Edited by: Kadesh Priestess on 11/03/2010 10:00:55
Originally by: Red Raider
First, I never whined about anything you may want to look in a mirror to find that. I stated what CCP has already made perfectly clear, a 1 minute logoff timer is in place to reduce the chances of a legitimate disconnect resulting in the destruction of a players assets. The OP and the people supporting his first item are whining that 1 minute isn't long enough to kill a target. Anything can be killed in less than a minute if enough firepower is available but a player can't avoid legitimate disco which is why the rule exists. That doesn't mean I support people using this tactic to avoid losing assets but since doing so is considered an exploit then it is up to you to petition the offending party not me and everyone else to lose our ships because of a legitimate disco and you and yours not getting a kill because you were unprepared to dish out the firepower needed to pull it off.
So in summary. You have multiples avenues to deal with item 1 while legitimate disco's have no way to stop a legitimate disco so they shouldn't pay the consequences and CCP agrees.
If i'm flying ship with relatively small hp, this rule won't help me. If i fly a ship with some nice hp buffer - then i will use it in any camp where hp buffer is enough to survive 1 minute but not 15, and where i will be defeated anyway if i'll stay online and fight.
Considering this now i agree with point 1). Because this point doesn't prevent everyone from being destroyed in smaller ships (even if they had some *real* disconnect) and easily abused to avoid definite ship loss in bigger ships - and that's something that should be changed.
You are basing everything that occurs in EVE off of lowsec and .0 pvp. Unfortunately for you the vast majority of EVE doesn't live and operate in either of those spaces. So when a noob in a frigate jumps into his level 1 mission and doesn't get killed because of a legitimate disco it's because this rule is in place due to the fact that a huge majority of paying eve customers face this issue every day. This rule is backed up by rules specifically designed to stop people from using this mechanic as a way losing your ship. There is nothing broken here except for the fact that people are not reporting it as they should be. Instead they come whine about it in the assembly hall.
Yes it's frustrating but CCP isn't going to make 3/4 of it's paying customers ****ed off because 1/100th of them disco on purpose.
|
Ephemeron
Retribution Corp.
Initiative Associates
|
Posted - 2010.03.11 21:58:00 -
[85]
Quote:
So when a noob in a frigate jumps into his level 1 mission and doesn't get killed because of a legitimate disco it's because this rule is in place due to the fact that a huge majority of paying eve customers face this issue every day.
What saves the noob in this case is "emergency warp" that happens immediately after disconnect.
Nobody here is proposing any changes to emergency warp. Your point is moot.
|
Red Raider
Caldari
Airbourne Demons
DeMoN's N AnGeL's
|
Posted - 2010.03.11 22:34:00 -
[86]
Originally by: Ephemeron
What saves the noob in this case is "emergency warp" that happens immediately after disconnect.
Nobody here is proposing any changes to emergency warp. Your point is moot.
Wrong there is warp jamming in some missions.
|
Jeremey
Glittering Dust
|
Posted - 2010.03.11 22:51:00 -
[87]
Edited by: Jeremey on 11/03/2010 22:51:47
Originally by: Red Raider
So when a noob in a frigate jumps into his level 1 mission and doesn't get killed because of a legitimate disco it's because this rule is in place due to the fact that a huge majority of paying eve customers face this issue every day.
What saves the noob is 2 minute aggro from NPC. No one here proposed any changes to that. Also no one here proposed to remove emergency warp or making ships stay for more than 1 or 2 minute if they don't have aggro.
If you don't know that "player" aggro and "npc" aggro are different things with different timers that are triggered differently, then go learn basic game mechanics before posting such posts.
|
Ephemeron
Retribution Corp.
Initiative Associates
|
Posted - 2010.03.11 23:02:00 -
[88]
Originally by: Red Raider
Originally by: Ephemeron
What saves the noob in this case is "emergency warp" that happens immediately after disconnect.
Nobody here is proposing any changes to emergency warp. Your point is moot.
Wrong there is warp jamming in some missions.
Please provide evidence of level 1-2 missions that have warp scrambling rats
|
Jeremey
Glittering Dust
|
Posted - 2010.03.11 23:09:00 -
[89]
Edited by: Jeremey on 11/03/2010 23:11:02
Originally by: Ephemeron
Please provide evidence of level 1-2 missions that have warp scrambling rats
It doesn't matter, because he doesn't understand that in this topic no one proposes to make NPC aggro timer to reset itself even if player logoffs. The whole talk is about player vs. player aggro timer.
For every one who doesn't know: if NPC shoots at you, you've got 2 minute "npc aggro" - if you logoff, your ship will be present in game for 2 minutes (it will either warp out or will stay in place for that time if NPCs have scrambled you).
On the other hand, player vs. player interaction (shots, warp disruptors, ecm, etc.) places on you 15 minute aggro.
The whole bug is that if you logoff and player places aggro on you AFTER that, you still disappear after 1 minute. But no one here proposes to make that if NPC shoots you after logoff (or disconnect) to make you ship stay for 15 minutes! People who think that this is proposed in this topic are just don't know even current game mechanics.
|
Ephemeron
Retribution Corp.
Initiative Associates
|
Posted - 2010.03.11 23:34:00 -
[90]
you are right Jeremey, the proposed changes have no effect on carebear that doesn't get attacked by another player.
The main problem is people logging off literally seconds before they see incoming aggro. And as I said earlier, the probability of real disconnect in that case is less than 1:10000
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |