Pages: 1 2 3 :: [one page] |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
Ariielle
|
Posted - 2010.03.18 06:57:00 -
[1]
Is it intended that logging off during warp no longer prevents your ship from landing at the target grid before entering emergency warp on the current sisi build?
|
|
CCP Lemur
|
Posted - 2010.03.18 09:01:00 -
[2]
That is indeed the case. Your ship will warp to where it was warping to and then do an emergency warp from there.
|
|
HeliosGal
Caldari
|
Posted - 2010.03.18 09:49:00 -
[3]
so does this mean those that enter warp then logoff logoffski style will instead land at their destination and allow us to kill em sweeet Signature - CCP what this game needs is more variance in PVE aspects and a little bit less PVP focus, more content more varied level 1-4 missions more than just 10 per faction high sec low sec and 00 |
Hentuku
|
Posted - 2010.03.18 10:29:00 -
[4]
Make your deep safes while you can then?
|
HeliosGal
Caldari
|
Posted - 2010.03.18 10:35:00 -
[5]
what it means is those players that jump into a system and hit warp then log off so gate campers in low sec cant get them will instead land at their destination and then log off after 1 minute. Giving us enough time to probe them out Signature - CCP what this game needs is more variance in PVE aspects and a little bit less PVP focus, more content more varied level 1-4 missions more than just 10 per faction high sec low sec and 00 |
Sader Rykane
Amarr Midnight Sentinels Midnight Space Syndicate
|
Posted - 2010.03.18 11:23:00 -
[6]
I finally figure out how to make a Poseidon safe and CCP nerfs it.
Just my luck =(
Sig Gallery is currently down: Contact me ingame for prices.
|
Amberlamps
|
Posted - 2010.03.18 11:46:00 -
[7]
Better set up a few more novelty 1000au deep safes!
|
Mistral Sud
Minmatar Black Box Corp.
|
Posted - 2010.03.18 11:57:00 -
[8]
dammit:(
yeah no new deep saves suxs, but my beloved gatecamp double logoffski trick is gone too! well so be it! but u need to give new players tools or at least a possibility to make DS too or delete all!
|
Kadesh Priestess
Scalding Chill
|
Posted - 2010.03.18 13:23:00 -
[9]
ccp <3
|
Jeremey
Glittering Dust
|
Posted - 2010.03.18 13:26:00 -
[10]
Originally by: CCP Lemur That is indeed the case. Your ship will warp to where it was warping to and then do an emergency warp from there.
Please also look at this thread.
|
|
Grarr Dexx
Amarr GK inc. Panda Team
|
Posted - 2010.03.18 13:32:00 -
[11]
So the new trick will be initiating warp to the furthest spot from you and immediatly logging off afterwards. Congratulations, nothing was fixed. ___
|
Kadesh Priestess
Scalding Chill
|
Posted - 2010.03.18 13:37:00 -
[12]
Originally by: Grarr Dexx So the new trick will be initiating warp to the furthest spot from you and immediatly logging off afterwards. Congratulations, nothing was fixed.
Well, it still didn't hit tq. Write bugreports and it will be fixed eventually, at least it shows that ccp is willing to do that :P
|
udontgothere
|
Posted - 2010.03.18 14:10:00 -
[13]
does this mean that the current deep safe spots will be removed as per the next patch on tq. Can i get a confirm or deny not a soonÖ
that is all |
JitaPriceChecker2
|
Posted - 2010.03.18 14:24:00 -
[14]
Yeah ccp if you removing ability to make deep safes you should also remove all deep safes as well or we will end up with another T2BPO like situation. |
Kadesh Priestess
Scalding Chill
|
Posted - 2010.03.18 14:32:00 -
[15]
Edited by: Kadesh Priestess on 18/03/2010 14:32:57 Not like but worse - t2 bpo cannot be duped while bookmarks are copied (by making new BM while being on safe spot) easily. |
darius mclever
|
Posted - 2010.03.18 14:55:00 -
[16]
Originally by: Kadesh Priestess Edited by: Kadesh Priestess on 18/03/2010 14:32:57 Not like but worse - t2 bpo cannot be duped while bookmarks are copied (by making new BM while being on safe spot) easily.
i dont want to destroy your fun, but you can copy bookmarks even without being on that spot. just hold shift while dragging them to your hangar.
works with max of 5 bookmarks at the time.
hope this helps :) |
Xeross155
Minmatar Fusion Death Inc. Intrepid Crossing
|
Posted - 2010.03.18 15:17:00 -
[17]
Too bad poseidon is gone, but good the double logoffski is fixed. |
Mistral Sud
Minmatar Black Box Corp.
|
Posted - 2010.03.18 17:45:00 -
[18]
double logoffwski still works on sisi! vov (couldnt test myself heard from a friend) after some thinking its logical cause it relies purely on the emergency warp, wich isnt changed.
And yes if u remove the ability to make DS remove them or give us a possibility to make some (new ship, probes whatever) i personaly cant think of a reason why DS are bad for the game! except lag but i think making corp bookmarks will do u a lot more favor regarding this :P (i lived in wh space some months :P) |
Pablo Cruise
|
Posted - 2010.03.18 17:57:00 -
[19]
I would be OK with CTRL+Q midwarp being removed if the EVE dev team will either reposition all gates closer to celestials, or consider a way to increase the range of ship Directional Scanners to make all 0.0 gates with scan range of a celestial. This could be done by a new ship role bonus (covert ops?), a skill to train, a module, or an increase to the scan range of all ships.
In many 0.0 systems, especially systems with regional gates, you have a long warp and the closest celestial to the gate you are warping to is farther than the ship's 14.35AU directional scanner range. In those situations, when a bubble appears on directional scan, the only way to potentially save your ship is to CTRL+Q.
|
Straight Chillen
Gallente Solar Wind AAA Citizens
|
Posted - 2010.03.18 18:29:00 -
[20]
Originally by: Pablo Cruise I would be OK with CTRL+Q midwarp being removed if the EVE dev team will either reposition all gates closer to celestials, or consider a way to increase the range of ship Directional Scanners to make all 0.0 gates with scan range of a celestial. This could be done by a new ship role bonus (covert ops?), a skill to train, a module, or an increase to the scan range of all ships.
In many 0.0 systems, especially systems with regional gates, you have a long warp and the closest celestial to the gate you are warping to is farther than the ship's 14.35AU directional scanner range. In those situations, when a bubble appears on directional scan, the only way to potentially save your ship is to CTRL+Q.
you know you can burn off most of your capacitor to limit how far your ship warps to the gate or what ever. Works great |
|
Jack bubu
Lyonesse. RAZOR Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.03.18 18:40:00 -
[21]
Originally by: Pablo Cruise I would be OK with CTRL+Q midwarp being removed if the EVE dev team will either reposition all gates closer to celestials, or consider a way to increase the range of ship Directional Scanners to make all 0.0 gates with scan range of a celestial. This could be done by a new ship role bonus (covert ops?), a skill to train, a module, or an increase to the scan range of all ships.
In many 0.0 systems, especially systems with regional gates, you have a long warp and the closest celestial to the gate you are warping to is farther than the ship's 14.35AU directional scanner range. In those situations, when a bubble appears on directional scan, the only way to potentially save your ship is to CTRL+Q.
Learn to use scouts?
|
Pablo Cruise
|
Posted - 2010.03.18 19:24:00 -
[22]
Originally by: Straight Chillen
you know you can burn off most of your capacitor to limit how far your ship warps to the gate or what ever. Works great
Yes I know that. I also know that it doesn't always work depending on the fit of the ship and capacitor skills. Even after running the MWD to zero cap, initiating warp, and canceling it repeatedly, enough capacitor can regenerate to make a warp greater than 14.35AU. |
Sunn Hunn
|
Posted - 2010.03.18 21:03:00 -
[23]
This is great feature ! Just imagine: if you'll manage to kill a pos with heavy ships logged off under the shield, and then install your own tower with disruptors and guns - they have no way to escape without bringing friends to incap scrams Or 0.0 blobbers disconnected after jumping through the gate into another blob - will be shot to shreds by happy campers as the fight ended and they finally can login. Yarr, i love that |
Mioelnir
Minmatar Cataclysm Enterprises Ev0ke
|
Posted - 2010.03.18 21:58:00 -
[24]
Edited by: Mioelnir on 18/03/2010 22:00:01 Considering how basically essential deepsafes were to keep to 0.0 alliance warefare game remotely playable after the last patch and its gridload-freezes, I'm astonished to see them getting taken out.
[Edit] And please, make it so that one can abort the emergency warp if you log back in during the initial warp/before it started to e-warp. MidWarp-disconnects in a freighter are no fun. |
Kadesh Priestess
Scalding Chill
|
Posted - 2010.03.18 22:01:00 -
[25]
Edited by: Kadesh Priestess on 18/03/2010 22:02:08
Originally by: Pablo Cruise Yes I know that. I also know that it doesn't always work depending on the fit of the ship and capacitor skills. Even after running the MWD to zero cap, initiating warp, and canceling it repeatedly, enough capacitor can regenerate to make a warp greater than 14.35AU.
You're doing something wrong. It always worked for me even on light ships with good recharge rate.
Originally by: Mioelnir And please, make it so that one can abort the emergency warp if you log back in during the initial warp/before it started to e-warp. MidWarp-disconnects in a freighter are no fun.
Lol? What's the point of this fix then? |
Mioelnir
Minmatar Cataclysm Enterprises Ev0ke
|
Posted - 2010.03.18 22:08:00 -
[26]
Edited by: Mioelnir on 18/03/2010 22:08:53
Originally by: Kadesh Priestess
Originally by: Mioelnir And please, make it so that one can abort the emergency warp if you log back in during the initial warp/before it started to e-warp. MidWarp-disconnects in a freighter are no fun.
Lol? What's the point of this fix then?
You end up at the point you intended to warp to, for example the next gate, a planet etc. And only there, no shifting.
There are warps that take 5+ minutes in a freighter, and currently if you disconnect during these, it can take a lot of time to get the freighter back under your control (easily 10min+). |
Planetary Genocide
Gallente White Talon Enterprises New Bastion
|
Posted - 2010.03.18 22:50:00 -
[27]
Originally by: Mistral Sud Edited by: Mistral Sud on 18/03/2010 18:27:13 double logoffwski still works on sisi! vov (couldnt test myself heard from a friend) after some thinking its logical cause it relies purely on the emergency warp, wich isnt changed.
And yes if u remove the ability to make DS remove them or give us a possibility to make some (new ship, probes whatever) i personaly cant think of a reason why DS are bad for the game! except lag but i think making corp bookmarks will do u a lot more favor regarding this :P (i lived in wh space some months :P)
well TCUs at 300 AU are bad! i guess thats the main reason!
Regarding TCU's, no they're not. They appear on overview when they're halfway onlined, I think, so you can still kill it even if it's 1000AU from the system. And when it IS online, there's a beacon that gives you a warpin point to it, so it doesn't matter where it's at, whether it's in the sun or halfway to the next system. |
Zora'e
Amarr Midnight Escort Service
|
Posted - 2010.03.19 01:38:00 -
[28]
Originally by: Planetary Genocide
Originally by: Mistral Sud Edited by: Mistral Sud on 18/03/2010 18:27:13 double logoffwski still works on sisi! vov (couldnt test myself heard from a friend) after some thinking its logical cause it relies purely on the emergency warp, wich isnt changed.
And yes if u remove the ability to make DS remove them or give us a possibility to make some (new ship, probes whatever) i personaly cant think of a reason why DS are bad for the game! except lag but i think making corp bookmarks will do u a lot more favor regarding this :P (i lived in wh space some months :P)
well TCUs at 300 AU are bad! i guess thats the main reason!
Regarding TCU's, no they're not. They appear on overview when they're halfway onlined, I think, so you can still kill it even if it's 1000AU from the system. And when it IS online, there's a beacon that gives you a warpin point to it, so it doesn't matter where it's at, whether it's in the sun or halfway to the next system.
Can someone explain how deep safes are made CURRENTLY? I have always been curious about this, and would love to try it out.
|
HeliosGal
Caldari
|
Posted - 2010.03.19 07:21:00 -
[29]
it just closes a few existing loopholes and about time if youre caught in a gatecamp youll either have to fight out bug back to gate or get blown up |
Mistral Sud
Minmatar Black Box Corp.
|
Posted - 2010.03.19 09:51:00 -
[30]
From other forums:p
Originally by: KzIg
Originally by: podcat if this is true I guess its time to start makign deep safes everywhere :S
No, it's the time to stop making them. Legacy deep safes are set to be purged.
Well then im ok with it! back to square one i guess:P
|
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
|
Posted - 2010.03.19 12:50:00 -
[31]
Originally by: Pablo Cruise I would be OK with CTRL+Q midwarp being removed if the EVE dev team will either reposition all gates closer to celestials, or consider a way to increase the range of ship Directional Scanners to make all 0.0 gates with scan range of a celestial. This could be done by a new ship role bonus (covert ops?), a skill to train, a module, or an increase to the scan range of all ships.
In many 0.0 systems, especially systems with regional gates, you have a long warp and the closest celestial to the gate you are warping to is farther than the ship's 14.35AU directional scanner range. In those situations, when a bubble appears on directional scan, the only way to potentially save your ship is to CTRL+Q.
Jesus, you're terrible. Seriously, I hate to say this to people, but... learn how to play.
Pro-Tips: scout the route, make scanpot bookmarks, dont warp blind to a gate when there are hostiles in local. Do you seriously not know these basic things?
|
JitaPriceChecker2
|
Posted - 2010.03.19 13:00:00 -
[32]
Removing ability to make ds will not solve anything , it will only make things worse becuase those BM are already made.
|
cBOLTSON
Caldari Shadow Legion. Talos Coalition
|
Posted - 2010.03.19 13:35:00 -
[33]
Originally by: Sader Rykane I finally figure out how to make a Poseidon safe and CCP nerfs it.
Just my luck =(
Yea same here!!
What the **** ccp! Ive only just figured that **** out!?!
If your nerfing poseidon safes, that can you at least give us an option in game to create them properly? Like a 'Warp out of system' @ 100 au, 200 au etc....
|
Pablo Cruise
|
Posted - 2010.03.19 16:59:00 -
[34]
Edited by: Pablo Cruise on 19/03/2010 17:00:21
Originally by: Malcanis
Jesus, you're terrible. Seriously, I hate to say this to people, but... learn how to play.
Pro-Tips: scout the route, make scanpot bookmarks, dont warp blind to a gate when there are hostiles in local. Do you seriously not know these basic things?
look at this scrub who has never heard of a login trap
and scanspot bookmarks are going to be the new warp-at-0 bookmarks
|
Sig Sour
|
Posted - 2010.03.19 17:39:00 -
[35]
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!
... ...
I am going to cry so hard the day I see the suicide gank fleet in high sec with my freighter and can not do ANYTHING to save myself anymore... Mid warp log off was all freighters had...
|
Ephemeron
Retribution Corp. Initiative Associates
|
Posted - 2010.03.19 18:02:00 -
[36]
Will we actually be able to lock ships that have logged during warp?
there seems to be a bug that makes target invulnerable
|
darius mclever
|
Posted - 2010.03.19 18:26:00 -
[37]
Originally by: Sig Sour NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!
... ...
I am going to cry so hard the day I see the suicide gank fleet in high sec with my freighter and can not do ANYTHING to save myself anymore... Mid warp log off was all freighters had...
you can
a) fly with a scout b) if you land on the out gate (because thats what you will do), you can just let them aggress you and jump!
(sorry for pointing out the obvious thing)
|
Sig Sour
|
Posted - 2010.03.19 18:51:00 -
[38]
Edited by: Sig Sour on 19/03/2010 18:53:33
Originally by: darius mclever a) fly with a scout b) if you land on the out gate (because thats what you will do), you can just let them aggress you and jump!
You don't have a freighter or any experience in this field do you?
a) I do, hence the log off mid warp scheme. It wont do much good anymore, a BS fleet can warp circles around a freighter.
b) Assuming that the people about to gank you are complete idiots that would work. Since they are suicide gankers they are obviously not idiots.
(pat yourself on the back more)
* if you are not lockable when you land out of warp, then it is fine, no need to panic.
|
Jack bubu
Lyonesse. RAZOR Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.03.19 19:03:00 -
[39]
look at all dem carebears crying that they cant logoffskie so easy anymore, oh noes!!!
|
darius mclever
|
Posted - 2010.03.19 19:10:00 -
[40]
Edited by: darius mclever on 19/03/2010 19:12:05
Originally by: Sig Sour Edited by: Sig Sour on 19/03/2010 18:53:33
Originally by: darius mclever a) fly with a scout b) if you land on the out gate (because thats what you will do), you can just let them aggress you and jump!
You don't have a freighter or any experience in this field do you?
a) I do, hence the log off mid warp scheme. It wont do much good anymore, a BS fleet can warp circles around a freighter.
b) Assuming that the people about to gank you are complete idiots that would work. Since they are suicide gankers they are obviously not idiots.
(pat yourself on the back more)
* if you are not lockable when you land out of warp, then it is fine, no need to panic.
edit: removed. why should i help an idiot like you sig.
|
|
Sig Sour
|
Posted - 2010.03.19 19:20:00 -
[41]
Originally by: Jack bubu look at all dem carebears crying that they cant logoffskie so easy anymore, oh noes!!!
I suicide gank, and fly freighters. I know how to catch even the most clever of freighter pilots. I know that without logging, the freighter is pretty much screwed. I am not denying that Ill be crying about this change, but I do resent being called a carebear.
*sniffle*
|
Brian O'Blivion
|
Posted - 2010.03.19 20:16:00 -
[42]
Originally by: JitaPriceChecker2 Yeah ccp if you removing ability to make deep safes you should also remove all deep safes as well or we will end up with another T2BPO like situation.
This
|
Lubomir Penev
Dark Nexxus
|
Posted - 2010.03.22 16:52:00 -
[43]
Originally by: JitaPriceChecker2 Removing ability to make ds will not solve anything , it will only make things worse becuase those BM are already made.
Even if this time I'll be on the "have" side it would definitely be ******ed leaving those BMs, very uneven playing field. -- 081014 : emoragequit, char transfered to a friend, 090317 : back to original owner blog |
Mara Rinn
|
Posted - 2010.03.23 06:18:00 -
[44]
Originally by: Jack bubu look at all dem carebears crying that they cant logoffskie so easy anymore, oh noes!!!
Logoffski still works with this fix doesn't it? Just ctrl-q while still in gate cloak.
What doesn't work is being sent to emergency warp the moment you disconnect if you're in the middle of a long warp. So previously a freighter pilot who got disconnected before exiting warp would endup with a ship "landing" somewhere else apart from the gate when they log back in. As it is now, a freighter pilot who gets disconnected will come back to a blown-up ship because the ship arrives on the out gate, then proceeds to enter emergency warp - leaving the ship vulnerable for at least 40 seconds while the ship comes around and gets back up to warp speed. If the freighter pilot is lucky they'll reconnect before the freighter lands at the out gate.
No more freighter runs without escorts.
[Aussie players: join channels ANZAC or AUSSIES] |
Hentuku
|
Posted - 2010.03.23 09:14:00 -
[45]
Originally by: Mara Rinn
No more freighter runs without escorts.
Are we talking about null,low or highsec here?
Surely in high and low warping to 0 is totally safe?
|
darius mclever
|
Posted - 2010.03.23 09:42:00 -
[46]
Originally by: Hentuku
Originally by: Mara Rinn
No more freighter runs without escorts.
Are we talking about null,low or highsec here?
Surely in high and low warping to 0 is totally safe?
sure.
|
NeoFusion
Caldari Freelancer Union Unaffiliated
|
Posted - 2010.03.23 16:29:00 -
[47]
Death to the mid-warp logoffski, good times indeed.
|
Ariane VoxDei
|
Posted - 2010.03.23 18:40:00 -
[48]
Originally by: Hentuku Make your deep safes while you can then?
Minus 9000 internets for you, that piece was not meant for the unthinking masses.
Next stop: people wailing to have all BM's that are >20au from a orbital body removed. (since that is about the limit of mission spaces, if not capped at 18AU).
|
Neutrino Sunset
Bene Gesserit ChapterHouse Tread Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.03.23 19:17:00 -
[49]
Wouldn't it make sense to fix 'socket disconnect error' first?
|
ChrisIsherwood
|
Posted - 2010.03.23 19:58:00 -
[50]
Originally by: Zora'e
*edit* Never mind, I found the relevant article on this mechanic.
mmm? Perhaps you did not. The Greek version of Neptune was ... |
|
Laechyd Eldgorn
Caldari Cruoris Seraphim Exalted.
|
Posted - 2010.03.27 11:09:00 -
[51]
Edited by: Laechyd Eldgorn on 27/03/2010 11:10:17 FINE
Let's fix the least broken logoff mechanic.
Logging off mid-warp makes sense because there is 200 AU warps and NO CANCEL BUTTON. Flying solo is already too ******edly difficult why make it even worse. Do we need one extra account for alt scouting everything now. And just so no one gets wrong idea it kills even interceptor when you land at gate with 200 hostiles popping up. You don't even have time to load grid before you're dead dead dead.
I'd say lets have a fix about logging off before warping first.
|
Widemouth Deepthroat
|
Posted - 2010.03.27 15:13:00 -
[52]
Of course you need more than 1 account to play...remember this is Eve.
|
skye orionis
|
Posted - 2010.03.31 17:50:00 -
[53]
Just curious - what if you logoff midwarp and it would take you more than the one minute standard logoff timer to complete the warp - does you ship still complete the warp and potentially stay logged on past the usual logoff timer?
It really will be a shame to see the deep safespot mechanics disappear, there's many ways that they improved the game, especially with all the crashes related to cynoing large fleets into busy systems. While the technique used was clearly manipulating an oversight in game mechanics it did require a decent amount of time and work on the part of the pilot.
I'd like to see some CCP approved mechanic for generating deep safes added - my suggestion would be something like a user accessible 'emergency warp' button that warps you a couple of AU in a random direction without needing to lock on to a celestial. This could generate a truly deep safe spot, but it would take a good amount of time to random walk your way out to >1000AU. I originally thought it would be a better emergency warp function if it just warped in the direction you were facing ('second star to the left, and straight on til morning) but that would remove the need to station instawarp bookmarks. Other ways to increase the difficulty would be to have emergency warps drain the cap completely or cause some amount of hull damage ('without precise coordinates from the navi-computer you might fly through a star'). well I can dream
|
Typherian
Minmatar Legio Invicta Apotheosis of Virtue
|
Posted - 2010.04.06 13:05:00 -
[54]
Personally I think they just need to fix the logoffski at a gate trick. The fact that logging before you decloak allows you to just disappear and avoid a camp is a bit rediculous. They should have to warp off or be stuck there. But oh well if CCP did that the stations would fill to bursting with carebear tears.
|
randomname4me
|
Posted - 2010.04.06 18:37:00 -
[55]
Originally by: Laechyd Eldgorn Do we need one extra account for alt scouting everything now.
No need for an account dedicated to scouting. Just get a friend, you know, the second M in MMORPG.
Originally by: CCP Navigator Thread has degenerated into nothing but spam.
Locked.
Petition|Successful|Reimbursement|Lag Pick 3 |
AnonyTerrorNinja
Minmatar Buggers' Advanced Interstellar Transport
|
Posted - 2010.04.06 18:38:00 -
[56]
Originally by: Typherian Personally I think they just need to fix the logoffski at a gate trick. The fact that logging before you decloak allows you to just disappear and avoid a camp is a bit rediculous. They should have to warp off or be stuck there. But oh well if CCP did that the stations would fill to bursting with carebear tears.
Last I checked the 'disappearing ship syndrome' only applied to ships that were tackled before they could enter their e-warp, ships that were within a warp disrupting bubble and thus couldn't enter e-warp and ships that were logged off with while within a POS shield bubble.
The last is there so that the ship doesn't get placed in a vulnerable position when it logs off (read: probe-able), does not have a visible reentry-point for bubbling purposes and does not drift out of the POS shields, potentially getting tackled before it even warps off.
Logging while you're cloaked at a gate, since there's nothing stopping your ship from warping just yet, should cause your ship to enter an e-warp just like any other 'normal' situation. If it doesn't then that's news to me, as I haven't been involved in a gatecamp in well over a year. ---
|
Supersnowprs
|
Posted - 2010.04.07 18:56:00 -
[57]
Consider this if you will 1. A fleet is warp to a stargate a far ways away (like 100au) 2. say for some reason some people are late and enter warp as the fleet land. 3. Now think that a 500 ship blob comes through and omgwtfpwns everything. *Is the late detachment 50au away now doomed due to the new changes? (Currently you can cancel warp there by logging.) *is this what the change was suposed to affect or was it deep safes?
|
Tonto Auri
Vhero' Multipurpose Corp
|
Posted - 2010.04.07 23:57:00 -
[58]
Originally by: Laechyd Eldgorn Edited by: Laechyd Eldgorn on 27/03/2010 11:10:17 FINE
Let's fix the least broken logoff mechanic.
Logging off mid-warp makes sense because there is 200 AU warps and NO CANCEL BUTTON. Flying solo is already too ******edly difficult why make it even worse. Do we need one extra account for alt scouting everything now. And just so no one gets wrong idea it kills even interceptor when you land at gate with 200 hostiles popping up. You don't even have time to load grid before you're dead dead dead.
I'd say lets have a fix about logging off before warping first.
Don't fly solo then? -- Thanks CCP for cu |
MeowMeow Magillicutty
|
Posted - 2010.04.08 17:45:00 -
[59]
There is still a way to make deep safes. BO pilot sits in a system. Cov cyno pilot sets in another system. Cyno goes up, BO waits until last second and jumps. Cyno drops mid jump. BO is left at random point in space. Most of the time you get a good safe, but sometimes you end up on a gate or something. Still, you get some good safes like this. |
Illectroculus Defined
|
Posted - 2010.04.10 19:25:00 -
[60]
So I did some checking using a charon and a friend in a large system, the charon warped to the other pilot (160au away) and logged off after reaching top warp speed, 3 minutes later the charon arrived on grid (well after the usual 1 minute logoff timer). At that point the charon started auto aligning for an emergency warp but disappeared before it could get to warp speed.
Oddly enough, while it was aligning I could target the freighter, but the 'look at' button did not work.
|
|
Neutrino Sunset
Bene Gesserit ChapterHouse Tread Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.04.12 06:23:00 -
[61]
Edited by: Neutrino Sunset on 12/04/2010 06:23:33 The key question is could you damage and/or tackle the freighter?
If you can that would be just utterly r4tarded.
|
Illectroculus Defined
|
Posted - 2010.04.12 20:19:00 -
[62]
oh yeah you can lock and attack the ship even though it's not logged in.
|
Neutrino Sunset
Bene Gesserit ChapterHouse Tread Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 04:49:00 -
[63]
Lol, what an effing joke.
|
Le Skunk
Low Sec Liberators
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 06:11:00 -
[64]
Originally by: Neutrino Sunset Lol, what an effing joke.
You prefer logging off to be a PVP FLAG = OFF i assume
SKUNK (o)
|
Neutrino Sunset
Bene Gesserit ChapterHouse Tread Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 08:10:00 -
[65]
I don't even know what you're talking about but nothing new there. What I know is that I'm reading this thread and everywhere it says "logging off" I'm substituting with "getting dc'ed" because since Dominion that's what's happening to me about half a dozen times a day on average.
The result of that mental translation paints a picture in which instead of travelling along merrily along getting dc'ed every now and again but no big deal and getting there eventually, the new way will be:
1. leave highsec and make a few jumps. 2. get dc'ed wake up in clone. 3 ?? 4. Don't profit.
|
Suitonia
Gallente Genos Occidere HYDRA RELOADED
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 16:08:00 -
[66]
I used to play on a terrible connection, and I'll tell you out of the maybe 200 times I'd DC'd before or during a PvP engagement, the amount of times where the disconnection was an advantage to me, I can count on one hand.
This is a good change, in my opinion. ---
|
Le Skunk
Low Sec Liberators
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 17:03:00 -
[67]
Edited by: Le Skunk on 13/04/2010 17:05:20 Im sorry, but it get to a point where "i keep DCing because of my 2 dollar connection on my 14k modem" is not a reason why the rest of the gamebase should be held back.
If you turn up to a hockey game, with a rotten old stick, do you expect the other players to knock the ball around really gently, and be very very careful not to knock your stick in case it shatters.
No. The rest of the team say - sorry mate your out. Spend a little money on your hobby.
I see a lot of ships jump through gates. And guess what. 95% of logofskis are freighter pilots - And ive never seen a shuttle log off once.
Strange that only freighter pilots have connection issues and shuttle pilots dont isnt it.
Or perhaps shuttle pilots know they cannot be tackled, and freighter pilots know (baring a 15 man gatecamp) they are safe if they log off.
SKUNK (o)
|
Neutrino Sunset
Bene Gesserit ChapterHouse Tread Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 18:07:00 -
[68]
Originally by: "Le Skunk" i keep DCing because of my 2 dollar connection on my 14k modem
Given the large number of people having connection issues since Dominion who've never had connection issues before you probably shouldn't talk about what you clearly know nothing about.
Re. your off topic fluff abut freighters, wake up, this isn't even about freighters and the proposed changes don't affect logging off in gate cloak, so again, what are you even talking about?
|
Le Skunk
Low Sec Liberators
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 22:09:00 -
[69]
Edited by: Le Skunk on 13/04/2010 22:09:42
Originally by: Neutrino Sunset
Re. your off topic fluff abut freighters, wake up, this isn't even about freighters and the proposed changes don't affect logging off in gate cloak, so again, what are you even talking about?
This thread is also not about your connection problems. Its specificaly about, and i quote
"is it intended that logging off during warp no longer prevents your ship from landing at the target grid before entering emergency warp on the current sisi build?"
Its about people LOGGING OFF IN AN ATTEMPT TO AVOID DESTRUCTION.
Whether that is loggin before warp whilst cloaked, logging immediatly apon hitting warp (the so called Darkside logofski) or indeed logging off as soon as an enemy ship comes on scan its all the same.
All abuse OUT OF GAME methods to avoid the consequences of your actions IN GAME, and any moves to combat it should be applauded.
Im sorry you have a dodgy connection - I would suggest you look into upgrading it. Your rubbish equipment is not an excuse for letting cheaters prosper however.
SKUNK
(o)
|
Neutrino Sunset
Bene Gesserit ChapterHouse Tread Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.04.14 04:30:00 -
[70]
Obviously this mechanic would effect anyone disconnecting just as much as anyone logging off, so your protestations that this is about logging off (with the implication that it's _only_ about logging off) unfortunately comes across as a particulary transparent attempt to ignore any part of this discussion which does not suit your particular point of view, which is a particularly self-defeating debating technique since it prevents you from being taken seriously.
I suspect you are also perfectly well aware that there is a issue with Eve network stability atm affecting a large number of players and that this change would interact with that issue in a manner guaranteed to get a great many people killed through no fault of their own. Your repeated attempts to pretend that this is not the case and to instead make uninformed accusations about other peoples equipment is rather obvious flamebait.
Consequantly I choose not to continue this discussion with you, but hope this will not cause you undue offense.
|
|
Kadesh Priestess
Scalding Chill
|
Posted - 2010.04.14 05:55:00 -
[71]
Edited by: Kadesh Priestess on 14/04/2010 05:55:59
Originally by: Neutrino Sunset ...
Legit DC vs log-off Now please describe exact situations where legit disconnect would result in 1) your ship kept intact pre-Tyrannis and 2) destroyed ship post-Tyrannis?
|
Neutrino Sunset
Bene Gesserit ChapterHouse Tread Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.04.14 07:27:00 -
[72]
You're in warp to somewhere, for the sake of argument let's say a gate but it could be anywhere. You dc in warp. Pre Tyrannis you warp immediately to safe spot and 30 seconds later disappear, post Tyrannis you warp to destination whereupon you can be tackled and ganked even though you are not even logged in and able to defend yourself.
That's the situation that's being created right, unless I'm missing something?
|
Suitonia
Gallente Genos Occidere HYDRA RELOADED
|
Posted - 2010.04.14 08:38:00 -
[73]
Trust me I've had a terrible connection in the past, and 99% of advantageous disconnects are intentional. If you have a bad connection / the server hates you, or for whatever reason. Chances are its going to happen while you are PvPing, docked, land on a highsec gate in lowsec then dc so you die, etc. Jump into a solo HIC with a interceptor, and die because you DC. it happens all the time.
If you didn't disconnect while in warp to a camped gate, would you survive normally? I think that is the question you should be asking. and in most cases of disconnects, I would say, the answer is no. ---
|
Kadesh Priestess
Scalding Chill
|
Posted - 2010.04.14 08:53:00 -
[74]
Originally by: Neutrino Sunset You're in warp to somewhere, for the sake of argument let's say a gate but it could be anywhere. You dc in warp. Pre Tyrannis you warp immediately to safe spot and 30 seconds later disappear, post Tyrannis you warp to destination whereupon you can be tackled and ganked even though you are not even logged in and able to defend yourself.
That's the situation that's being created right, unless I'm missing something?
Try pulling out your network cable when you're warping to any camp. Record video and post it here. Post km.
If you ever got legit disconnects in this scenario, you'd know that in 90% of cases server won't consider you as disconnected before you finished your warp. When time-out occurs - you're already scrambled and aggroed, and won't disappear for 15 minutes.
Not sure what happens if time-out occurs when you're still in warp (these 10% of cases, like you got disconnect on slow ship when just started long-range warp). Probably ship just vanishes mid-warp or reaches destination and disappears.
|
Neutrino Sunset
Bene Gesserit ChapterHouse Tread Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.04.14 11:01:00 -
[75]
Suitonia: I can't imagine why you would suggest that your chances of survival if your ship warps to a gate with you logged off are not significantly different to your chances of survival if you are not logged off.
Kadesh: I've already provided an example of a situation where this new mechanic would kill a disconnected player who would potentially not die under the current behaviour. And I've already described what currently happens if your connection timeout elapses while in warp, which despite what you think is a perfectly likely outcome given the time it takes to get up to full speed in warp and then deccelerate and become lockable on grid.
If you want to theorise what percentage of the time that might happen and whether on the grounds of that balance of probability it's a good idea to intentionally implement a mechanic devised to ensure that disconnected players get killed while logged off be my guest, my position remains that it sucks _in principal_ to do this irrespective of whether it kills disconnected players 10% or 90% of the time. And the excuse that it's necessary because how else will pirates get to kill people who've disconnected holds no water for me whatsoever because I don't see any reason for pirates to expect to be able to kill people who've disconnected in the first place.
Just because the fact that some people have disconnected while others have logged off and this irritates the pirates whose main concern is getting to the top of the killboard each month seems scant reason to shaft those who've genuinely disconnected. What's more if the local situation precludes a player from completing his intended objective logging off while unaggressed and going and something else for a while seems a perfectly reasonable course of action to me. The idea bandied around by some that potential targets should be forced to remain logged in when they want to kill them, undock when they want to kill them and basically do whatever it takes to help the pirate in question get to the top of the killboard that month strikes me as nothing short of self-centered drivel.
|
Kadesh Priestess
Scalding Chill
|
Posted - 2010.04.14 13:12:00 -
[76]
Originally by: Neutrino Sunset Kadesh: I've already provided an example of a situation where this new mechanic would kill a disconnected player who would potentially not die under the current behaviour. And I've already described what currently happens if your connection timeout elapses while in warp, which despite what you think is a perfectly likely outcome given the time it takes to get up to full speed in warp and then deccelerate and become lockable on grid.
Edit: Perhaps you haven't flown many freighters but a freighter warps at 0.3au/s and there are plany of systems 150au across which means that flying a freighter your chance of dcing mid warp is massively greater than your chance of that happening flying a combat ship. The fact that the client/server can take a long time to even recognise that you're not even connected any more is just another instance where the crappy network code shafts the player, but that hardly seems like a valid excuse for intentionally making that situation even worse.
I hope you realize that you're taking extreme example. And what if ship is stiletto and system is 20 au? I even do not warp onto gate in an interceptor in small system, and don't see reason for anyone to warp his freighter directly to gate which is 300 au away. Stupid/lazy morons in lowsec/nullsec space deserve to die.
Originally by: Neutrino Sunset If you want to theorise what percentage of the time that might happen and whether on the grounds of that balance of probability it's a good idea to intentionally implement a mechanic devised to ensure that disconnected players get killed while logged off be my guest, my position remains that it sucks _in principal_ to do this irrespective of whether it kills disconnected players 10% or 90% of the time. And the excuse that it's necessary because how else will pirates get to kill people who've disconnected holds no water for me whatsoever because I don't see any reason for pirates to expect to be able to kill people who've disconnected in the first place.
I've visited each and every k-space systems in eve, and average system has radius smaller than 30-50 au.
I strongly advise against implementing such mechanics, it will encourage players to simulate disconnect. I don't see any reason for your ship not to die when you got DC in fight, same for warping into camp and many other situations.
|
Le Skunk
Low Sec Liberators
|
Posted - 2010.04.14 14:31:00 -
[77]
Originally by: Neutrino Sunset
Just because the fact that some people have disconnected while others have logged off and this irritates the pirates whose main concern is getting to the top of the killboard each month .
And now we, unsurprisingly, get to the hub of the matter.
You just dont like pirates and dont like getting blown up. Well sorry mate, but its a PvP game and you shouldn't be able to use logging off mid warp (Which is what the OP is about) under the tenuous excuse of "my connection failed again JUST as i was about to land in a gate camp") to save your ship.
Use a scout, get an escort, use the correct ship for the job to stop getting ganked. IN GAME METHODS
Dont be pulling the network cable and blaming your crappy connection.
SKUNK (o)
|
Neutrino Sunset
Bene Gesserit ChapterHouse Tread Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.04.14 16:18:00 -
[78]
Originally by: "Kadesh Priestess" I hope you realize that you're taking extreme example.
Freighter logistics is just one thing that's likely to suffer most with this change, and freighters making long warps is commonplace therefore the example I provided is not extreme at all, it's simply an example which was selected because it highlights the issue better than that of an interceptor warping 10au.
The point about not warping directly to the gate is valid and well made, but that still doesn't change the fact that core of the issue is that there are already plenty of perfectly reasonable ways for someone to die and be killed in game without have to invent new ways for people to be able to be killed when they aren't even logged in, although given the new fleet combat behaviour introduced with Dominion perhaps being killed while not logged in is the new fotm.
That some players will logoff to avoid destruction is I'm sure as irksome to some as other players using neut scouts and logistics alts and corp spies is to the rest of us. I think there's little point trying to define any particular point at which metagaming crosses some sort of line of acceptability, not because I engage in it personally, but because you'll simply never get any consenus on such a contentious issue.
In some cases though it does seems to me that what could validly be classified as metagaming could be just as validly be considered a reasonable attempt to get around some of the more nonsensical limitations of Eve in its current state.
For example, cynoing or jumpbridging into a deep safe is currently about the only feasible way of getting two fleets into a system so that they can actually fight at all (also being nerfed). Are deep safes an intended part of the game, no of course not, but they are the only solution players have to an existing limitation in the game.
Similarly logging out mid warp is an imaginative way to leave Eve with a little bit of additional safety when the implemented mechanics are so skewed that if you happen to be aggressed when some RL issue comes up you have to either self destruct and pod yourself home or continue to play for another 20 minutes until CCP decides you're allowed to leave. For a game that supposedly tailors to grown ups who might have more pressing responsibilities than a computer game that's such an unfriendly mechanic that I doubt many non-basement dwellers have much compunction at all doing whatever they need to in order to get around it and log off safely when they want to, in exactly the same way as those wanting a fleet fight are happy to use deep safes to make that possible.
In the same vein warping along and seeing a gate camp jump through the gate in front of you 14au away on directional scan it will to many people seem equally nonsensical that despite 7 years of Eve development they still have such poorly implemented ship control that they can't even drop out of warp when they choose. In the absence of CCP actually :shock: doing some development on the core ship control and combat mechanics imaginative workarounds are all the players have to resort to in this and many other problem areas.
...
|
Neutrino Sunset
Bene Gesserit ChapterHouse Tread Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.04.14 16:21:00 -
[79]
On the subject of freighters in particular I think the whole deal there is so of whack that it is another area where players are essentially forced by the existing mechanics into imaginative/metagaming solutions.
Firstly they cost 10 times as much as a fitted BS so there's already plenty of risk vs reward there to start with.
Then add to that the fact that they have no offensive or defensive capability whatsoever and no module or rigs slots either. So that just multiplies your risk vs reward by another factor of 10.
On top of that add in the value of your cargo and multiply your risk vs reward by another factor of 10.
Those factors combine to create the situation where the risk vs reward balance of a simple operation to move some stuff from one place to another is so far skewed to the risk side of the equation that you need to have at least twice as many people defending the freighter as you believe would ever try to gank it, and even that doesn't provide any safely whatsoever in the case of a suicide attack or getting hotdropped.
In this situation it's hardly surprising that in the complete absence of any effective counter to getting your freighter ganked even the most avid anti-metagaming campaigners probably have little compunction in logging off a freighter in gate cloak, because let's face it, what even remotely effective alternatives exist?
With all these interrelated issues in mind I wouldn't suggest for a second that the status quo is a great situation. What I think is needed is a careful examination of all the issues and a coherant solution designed that enables folks who have basically already escaped their aggressors and are warping around unimpeeded to log off without having to continue playing for another 20 minutes if they don't want to, which protects those who get disconnected/blackscreened from having their ships destroyed while not even in control of them, while at the same time giving those trying to catch them a reasonable window of opportunity to probe them out if they initially escape off grid after having been aggressed. What can be done to make freighter logistics more reasonable I'm not really sure, but I can't think of any reason why pilots shouldn't be able to cancel warp at any time or log off any time they like while not aggressed.
In the absence of any reasonable coherant solution to these issues additional one-sided mechanics designed to further increase the number of ways you can be killed while logged out or disconnected/blackscreened due to crappy server performance seem perverse and unnecessary and imo deserve to be strenously resisted.
But I know that's just my opinion and I know a lot of folks out there who are of the complete opposite opinion and that as soon as they see a guy in local he should be forced to remain in game whether he's aggressed or not until they manage to kill him or he gets back to station/highsec, and if he logs or is disconnected then at the very least his ship should appear unpiloted and defenseless before them so that they can kill and pod him with no effort at all.
|
Illectroculus Defined
|
Posted - 2010.04.14 19:36:00 -
[80]
If you're flying a freighter and you may be a legitimate target (hi-sec while wardecced, low-sec/0.0 regardless) then you treat your ship with respect and you plan ahead for the challenges you might face.
You fly with an escort, a couple of ships flying 1-2 jumps ahead, and a couple of ships lagging, another ship to help web you into warp, and maybe some others to setup on gates. When you have to make a warp across system you realise that this takes a long time and the scouting situation make change in this time. So, you don't warp directly to gate, you warp just off grid so that you can reassess the situation when you land on grid. If you get the slightest hint of red activity then it may be acceptable to logoff the freighter so that you'll be gone in 60 seconds.
So, smart pilots still have plenty of options open to them.
However, I would still like to see an option to force a ship to drop out of warp prior to reaching its destination, that would allow a pilot stuck in warp to escape their inevitable arrival at the remote end without having the pungent aroma of a borderline exploit. Rather than arguing for re-breaking the warp mechanic I believe time it better spent enhancing warp drive mechanics.
|
|
Neutrino Sunset
Bene Gesserit ChapterHouse Tread Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.04.15 04:25:00 -
[81]
No offense Illectroculus but I think everyone here is aware of the simple precautions you mention, but while those precautions may be very effective for moving other types of ships around they don't really work at all for freighters. Freighters are so slow to align and warp and have such a fat sig that a good prober can get a scan lock on one before it's even finished coming out of warp, and easily warp tacklers to it before it can align and warp somewhere else.
About the only safe way to move a freighter through a system is if local is totally blue, and even then there is another issue. One the whole subject of logging off there are plenty of avid supporters for any change to prevent people logging off, even one which would inevitably result people genuinely disconnecting or blackscreening loosing there ships, but there is rarely any balance to the discussion or recognition of the fact that currently the knife cuts both ways, where is the same hysteria when it comes to logon traps? A freighter moving through a system that is apparently clear no matter what escort it has has practically no defense at all to a login trap especially if one of the logging in ships has a cyno.
So at the moment it seems the logon/logoff situation is borked in several ways some on the side of the attacker and some on the side of the prey, but a new mechinic designed to ensure anyone who gets disconnected gets killed isn't remotely going to improve that situation, all it will do is give CCP something which they can point to and say 'look we did something' which will only serve to further delay the possibility of any coherant and balanced solution.
|
Kadesh Priestess
Scalding Chill
|
Posted - 2010.04.15 09:31:00 -
[82]
Edited by: Kadesh Priestess on 15/04/2010 09:32:36 You've wrote wall of good words, and they mention even risk vs reward, but freighters are not the only ships which have cargo hold. Blockade runners in game for a purpose. If you want relative safety - pick blockade runner, if you're operating freighter in your home well-secures space - use freighter. If you pick freighter for carrying stuff in dangerous places - get corresponding risks for your laziness: you could do your job in a much more safe way using blockade runner, just with greater time investments.
Freighters are supposed to operate in a safe space or under cover of escort.
But even in a freighter there's variety of tools to check if system is camped or not: bring friend on covops, use local communication channel and direct scanner. Leaving warp at any point? Well, this may be good idea, but only if it will come with some warp inhibition device which will be able to pull you out of warp when you pass, say, 1 au from it.
|
Neutrino Sunset
Bene Gesserit ChapterHouse Tread Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.04.15 11:41:00 -
[83]
Originally by: "Kadesh Priestess" but freighters are not the only ships which have cargo hold. Blockade runners in game for a purpose.
There are items in game (even more since Dominion) that can _only_ be carried by freighter.
Originally by: "Kadesh Priestess" But even in a freighter there's variety of tools to check if system is camped or not: bring friend on covops, use local communication channel and direct scanner.
That only works up to a point. One the points I raised was that at the moment the knife cuts both ways with people logging off at gate being a pain in the arse but also people using log in traps being equally annoying. The effect of the presence of techniques like login traps is that no matter how well you scout if someone really wants your freighter you really have no effective tools at your disposal to keep it alive. Hence my view that doing anything to make this already imbalanced situation even worse would be misguided.
|
Kadesh Priestess
Scalding Chill
|
Posted - 2010.04.15 12:36:00 -
[84]
Originally by: Neutrino Sunset There are items in game (even more since Dominion) that can _only_ be carried by freighter.
Correct, because they're supposed to be corp property, and supposed to be transported not in a alone freighter but in a freighter with escort.
Originally by: Neutrino Sunset That only works up to a point. One the points I raised was that at the moment the knife cuts both ways with people logging off at gate being a pain in the arse but also people using log in traps being equally annoying. The effect of the presence of techniques like login traps is that no matter how well you scout if someone really wants your freighter you really have no effective tools at your disposal to keep it alive. Hence my view that doing anything to make this already imbalanced situation even worse would be misguided.
I agree with you here, i don't like log on/log off techniques to be used for offensive actions like login trap, but same for defensive techniques. In my experience, i've seen defensive use of presence status much more often, and that's exactly why i think it should be solved 1st.
|
Neutrino Sunset
Bene Gesserit ChapterHouse Tread Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.04.15 18:45:00 -
[85]
No one's talking about a lone freighter here. A logon trap by a high dps force is a near undefendable way of killing a freigher, and it's not the only one. A hot drop on the gate will do just as nicely and the only defense to that is to not travel through any systems that are not completely blue, which in the age of covops cloaking everything seems an unreasonable constraint. Given the speed at which the freighter travels and its sig probing it out in warp and then either hotdropping it or swarming it with ships coming in from a couple of systems away is also pretty much undefendable. These are ways of killing a freighter that could not even be reliably countered by a fleet of Falcons and a cap fleet on standby so the counterclaim that all you need is a bit of an escort really does not stand up to scrutiny.
I do agree that metagaming through logging off is certainly used more than metagaming through logon, but I'd argue that metagaming through logging off is only as prevalent as it is because of the lack of reasonable counters to the existing imbalanced situations described above. Whereas metagaming through logging on is not done because of lack of in game ways of springing an ambush. Also the consequences of a logoff are no more than a missed killmail on someone who wasn't even aggressed in the first place, compared the consequences of a metagaming logon which might be a totally unreasonable x billion isk lossmail.
So I'd say it's possible to make just as good a case for fixing logon metagaming first, or at least not making the current situation even worse by making logging off while not even agressed more dangerous than it already is, before fixing the in game issues which make it the only solution to existing imbalances.
Logging off in gate cloak is already easy enough to prevent. All you need to do is activate any kind of offensive module on the enemy freighter when you first spot it and it's not logging off for 20 minutes under any circumstances. If the freighter pilot is clever enough to log off before his attackers are clever enough to aggress him then I don't see a problem. Just don't make your first encounter with the freighter be a static camp on the other side of his out gate because if you do that you play right into about the only effective defense he has.
|
Le Skunk
Low Sec Liberators
|
Posted - 2010.04.16 17:36:00 -
[86]
Originally by: Neutrino Sunset No one's talking about a lone freighter here. A logon trap by a high dps force is a near undefendable way of killing a freigher, and it's not the only one. A hot drop on the gate will do just as nicely and the only defense to that is to not travel through any systems that are not completely blue, which in the age of covops cloaking everything seems an unreasonable constraint. Given the speed at which the freighter travels and its sig probing it out in warp and then either hotdropping it or swarming it with ships coming in from a couple of systems away is also pretty much undefendable. These are ways of killing a freighter that could not even be reliably countered by a fleet of Falcons and a cap fleet on standby so the counterclaim that all you need is a bit of an escort really does not stand up to scrutiny.
I do agree that metagaming through logging off is certainly used more than metagaming through logon, but I'd argue that metagaming through logging off is only as prevalent as it is because of the lack of reasonable counters to the existing imbalanced situations described above. Whereas metagaming through logging on is not done because of lack of in game ways of springing an ambush. Also the consequences of a logoff are no more than a missed killmail on someone who wasn't even aggressed in the first place, compared the consequences of a metagaming logon which might be a totally unreasonable x billion isk lossmail.
So I'd say it's possible to make just as good a case for fixing logon metagaming first, or at least not making the current situation even worse by making logging off while not even agressed more dangerous than it already is, before fixing the in game issues which make it the only solution to existing imbalances.
Logging off in gate cloak is already easy enough to prevent. All you need to do is activate any kind of offensive module on the enemy freighter when you first spot it and it's not logging off for 20 minutes under any circumstances. If the freighter pilot is clever enough to log off before his attackers are clever enough to aggress him then I don't see a problem. Just don't make your first encounter with the freighter be a static camp on the other side of his out gate because if you do that you play right into about the only effective defense he has.
Yes we are talking about lone freighters here. It is lone freighters who routinely log ofski daily in this game. People very rarely bother to escort freighters nowadays, particulalay in low sec, as their simply is no point. Myself, ive seen this a couple of hundered times. Throughout the game, the figures must be mind boggling.
As for your "NO DEFENSE AGAINST HOTDROPPING!!!" - counter hotdrop with a triage carrier. There you go - that took 5 seconds for me to work out for you.
Quote:
Logging off in gate cloak is already easy enough to prevent. All you need to do is activate any kind of offensive module on the enemy freighter when you first spot it and it's not logging off for 20 minutes under any circumstances.
Wrong, and you show your utter ignorance (which has already shone through many times in this thread) again here. Loging off under gate cloak means your ship (whatever it may be) disapears into thin air in 60 seconds, tackled or not, in hull or not, or on an empty gate or not.
It does not hang around for 20 mins.
Research the facts or cease your whining.
SKUNK
(o)
|
Neutrino Sunset
Bene Gesserit ChapterHouse Tread Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.04.18 19:09:00 -
[87]
Originally by: Neutrino Sunset Logging off in gate cloak is already easy enough to prevent. All you need to do is activate any kind of offensive module on the enemy freighter when you first spot it and it's not logging off for 20 minutes under any circumstances. If the freighter pilot is clever enough to log off before his attackers are clever enough to aggress him then I don't see a problem. Just don't make your first encounter with the freighter be a static camp on the other side of his out gate because if you do that you play right into about the only effective defense he has.
I'd have thought it was perfectly obvious that what I'm saying here is to aggress the freighter _before_ it jumps into your gate camp, not after it has already jumped though and logged off.
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 :: [one page] |