| Pages: 1 [2] :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Nautsyn Thome
Shark Investments
Shark-Investments
3
   |
Posted - 2011.11.08 23:12:00 -
[31] - Quote
Mr Kidd wrote:
Um, no. Jumping through a gate/wh does not commit one to battle. As you state here, someone unknowingly jumping through a gate/wh into a camp should have an automatic 15min hold on warp out.
Only if i put a point on him when he decloaks.
Mr Kidd wrote: 1) As long as they're cloaked in session change how did you engage them in battle? There was no commitment.
Thats right, because i had no point on him yet. When he logs off in that moment, he accepts that his ship will decloak and become vulnable.
Mr Kidd wrote: 2) You've never actually jumped through a gate with a fleet, have you? You can find your entire fleet disconnected, clients crashed on a node that didn't handle the load. And oh, now you want to crawl around for 15 minutes picking them off? I don't think so.
I did it many times, and sometimes there was so heavy lag, that i dont saw my ship exploding and just landed back to my clone station. In that situations i would be dead even if i had a 1 min timer anyway, because my ship didnt even warp away.
Mr Kidd wrote: I fully understand the idealism from which you want this. But, with current states of the game it would just mean a massacre for people jumping through gates/wh's. And that's why it shouldn't be.
Again this case would only apply to your node crash / heavy lag scenario.
Mr Kidd wrote: The easiest solution is to have enough DPS at hand. Unfortunately, that isn't the case in all circumstances, log off mechanics not withstanding. Just gotta suck it up and deal with it. You win some. You lose some.
Thats right. |
Taedrin
Kushan Industrial
142
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 23:38:00 -
[32] - Quote
Nautsyn Thome wrote:Montevius Williams wrote:Just becasue someone jumps though a gate or WH DOES NOT mean they have commited themselves to battle. You need to reword that. True: Flying through dangerous space without intel and without protection is not only risky, its an agreement to be engaged and destroyed by others. And i correct myself: Using a game mechanic to escape from mentioned example is not an exploit, as long as its defined as a legal mechanic. Thus this thread and the call to CCP to look at this and change it.
And not bringing enough pilots to your gate camp so that you can insta pop a freighter is an agreement to allow all freighters to go free.
And unfortunately, CCP seems to be moving away from declaring game mechanics to be exploits. Corp/alliance hopping, dec shields, alt recycling, etc are all now allowed (and have been for some time without CCP announcing it).
But to be honest, I am actually on the side of the gankers. Ships which disconnect in space should remain in space for an extended period of time. On the other hand, ships should keep their modules active when they log off, so that they are still able to tank damage. This way players who DO disconnect due to ISP issues at least have a chance to log back in to save their ship. |
Nautsyn Thome
Shark Investments
Shark-Investments
3
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 23:41:00 -
[33] - Quote
Taedrin wrote: On the other hand, ships should keep their modules active when they log off, so that they are still able to tank damage. This way players who DO disconnect due to ISP issues at least have a chance to log back in to save their ship.
Thats a good suggestion. |
Montevius Williams
Eclipse Industrial Inc
71
|
Posted - 2011.11.09 00:05:00 -
[34] - Quote
Nautsyn Thome wrote:Montevius Williams wrote:Just becasue someone jumps though a gate or WH DOES NOT mean they have commited themselves to battle. You need to reword that. True: Flying through dangerous space without intel and without protection is not only risky, (This is true) its an agreement to be engaged and destroyed by others. (This is false) Just becasue YOU think its an "agreement" does not make it so.And i correct myself: Using a game mechanic to escape from mentioned example is not an exploit, as long as its defined as a legal mechanic. Thus this thread and the call to CCP to look at this and change it.
The Dev blog states that if you are engage in battle and decide to log off becasuse you are loosing that battle, you will no longer dissapear and can be killed. If however you log before battle has commenced, you will dissapear as per normal game mechanics. I dont see anything wrong with this. |
Reilly Duvolle
Hydra Squadron
93
|
Posted - 2011.11.09 00:14:00 -
[35] - Quote
Nautsyn Thome wrote:
Sorry but this is bullshit. I understood it the first time and now you suggest that it is justified to escape as long as you dont have a dictor within a minute to catch a logoffski.
I already catched it with my point, and only because a bubble autotriggers aggro at e-warp doesnt justify that this mechanic shouldnt work with a normal point.
My experience was just an example, and aslong as logging off shouldnt be a viable tactic to escape, i dont see why this should work on super's but not on smaller targets, only because you dont bring a blob within a minute.
Thats nonsense.
Also you would help this discussion if you would point out that good reasons you mentioned.
From a technical perspective - the only thing the server knows is that the connection to the client was lost, for whatever reason. The server does not know the reason. The player may have logged off. The player may have crahsed. Or the player may have logged off specifically to avoid getting killed by a gatecamp.
Of all dissconnects between server and client during a 24 hours period gamewide, how many disconnects do you think fall in the latter category? Exactly. Very very very few. And you are actually arguing that because you lost a gank, the mechanic should be made so the latter case couldnt happen. Frankly, I am speechless of the stupidity.
 |
Cambarus
Clearly Compensating
The Dark Triad
27
|
Posted - 2011.11.09 00:24:00 -
[36] - Quote
Normally I'm all for changes that make eve riskier, because CCP has been trending towards making the game a bit too carebear-friendly for my liking. However, you also have to factor in that people disconnect from the server for reasons other than avoiding gatecamps.
If someone bouncing between safes, or sitting at one cloaked, DCs, do you think it fair that the people trying to find them get a free pass to kill them, despite not actually being able to while they were at their keyboards? Same goes for damn near any situation tbh, when someone disconnects you'd be given a 1 minute timer (MORE than enough to probe them down, pretty much anywhere) During which if you so much as look at them funny they're as good as dead.
Tell ya what, when CCP changes gates so that they send someone to a random spot in the solar system on the other side (rather than just 15km from the gate) you can have your timer reset from 1 minute  |
non judgement
Without Fear
Flying Burning Ships Alliance
148
|
Posted - 2011.11.09 00:26:00 -
[37] - Quote
They didn't commit their ship to battle. They only jumped through. Simple as that. It's not easy to engage a ship after it logs off before you have a chance to see it. I can't usually get a lock on a ship once it has entered warp. So you managed to get a lock on it between the pilot logging off and the ship warping? That's too late. You should have got a point on him before he logged off. EVE doesn't give you many second chances but this is one of those few times they have that chance to save their ship. If they made a mistake like trying to get away while staying logged on, then you'd have them for sure. But they didn't make that mistake.
If the situation was reversed, wouldn't you like to be able to log off before the other person has a chance to get a lock on your ship?
You might have had something really expensive on your ship and you'll think "oh well, thats what I get for flying around with expensive stuff and not making sure that it was safe on the other side" ? Or will you be on these forums saying "It's unfair that I had no way to save my expensive ship/cargo" ? |
Haulin Aussie
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
8
|
Posted - 2011.11.09 00:48:00 -
[38] - Quote
Whilst it's easy for everyone to say the orca doesn't commit to a fight by simply jumping, had he been pointed whilst half way through aligning before warping off he still would have gained agression, yet aligning to warp isn't a commitment to fight either.
I see what the op is saying, but I don't think it's really a big deal. if you were super uber you would have camped his wh till he logged back in.
You went for a gank, you missed, move on bro. |
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 [2] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |