EVE Search - Logging out to avoid combat results

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

Logging out to avoid combat results

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] 2 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Rath Amon	Posted - 2003.09.12 18:14:00 - [1] I'd like to see how many people agree that ships need to stay in space longer after the pilot logs out. Also, do you think that it's an exploit to allow a player to quit and then quickly login with an alt character to force their original ship to disappear even faster than normal?
Joshua Calvert	Posted - 2003.09.12 18:17:00 - [2] What about when people CTD in mid-battle? How would you differentiate between the two? GM's are aware of this growing trend and, in response to a petition I posted a few weeks ago, they said they're working on it. LEEEEERRRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOOYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY!
NoHawker	Posted - 2003.09.12 18:17:00 - [3] Simple solution. Ship logs out in 2 minutes after disconnect. If the ship has been fired upon in those two minutes the timer resets it self. What are you going to do? I'm going to kill them all sir
Hikaru Okuda	Posted - 2003.09.12 18:35:00 - [4] I'd like to see the ship try to defend itself with some limited AI control... So if you are fighting someone and CTD, your ship will try to defend itself and you may still have a chance if you log on fast enough. You'd probably still lose unless you way outclass what is fighting you, but I think it's better than the ship just sitting there until the timer runs out. Maybe if you were in combat, there is no timer and it tries to fight to the end?
Veruna Caseti	Posted - 2003.09.12 18:38:00 - [5] Yes, while I agree logging out to avoid combat is a nasty tactic - with all the CTDs going on (especially in high-lag situations like jumping/warping in and engaging in combat) I would hate to see them make it easier to kill linkdead players at this point. Maybe once the CTDs are fixed, the timer can be safely increased without undue harm to players who don't "choose" to lose link during battle. Veruna Caseti Ishukone
dalman	Posted - 2003.09.12 18:41:00 - [6] I'm twisted... Cuase it's damn hard for people who crash in the middle of a roid belt... But it also takes damn many people to be able to destroy a solo Scorpion with loads of hardeners before his ship disappears. M.I.A. since 2004-07-30
Jarjar	Posted - 2003.09.12 19:22:00 - [7] There should be a difference if another player is involved in scrambling/jamming/firing at you or not. When fighting NPCs, and only NPCs, you should disappear rather fast, OR, they always stop firing when you crash/log out. Would be nice, since it doesn't matter the same way as in PvP. However, CTDing in the middle of PvP fights isn't "fixable", I suppose.
Homo Erectus	Posted - 2003.09.12 19:28:00 - [8] yes, logging out to avoid dying in combat is something i despise. i watched posers in jumpgate do it, now I have seen posers in eve like technolisa do it. it's sick.
The Wretch	Posted - 2003.09.12 19:30:00 - [9] "But it also takes damn many people to be able to destroy a solo Scorpion with loads of hardeners before his ship disappears." Yes this is very annoying. If I am engaging a scorpion and doing only ~50-70 dmg a hit I just stop the engagement and pick a different target or leave the scene if solo. I am so glad the hardener stacking is going to be a relative thing of the past next patch. In all, 2 minutes should be plenty of time to destroy a target with the changes next patch imo. The Wretch Cyberdyne Systems CEO
cball	Posted - 2003.09.12 19:56:00 - [10] Quote: What about when people CTD in mid-battle? How would you differentiate between the two? GM's are aware of this growing trend and, in response to a petition I posted a few weeks ago, they said they're working on it. ...I wouldn't hold your breath...took them months to even admit they were the cause of the CTD's... ...fear the evil monkey in your hanger...
Chucky	Posted - 2003.09.12 20:00:00 - [11] The nerfing of hardeners will hurt this tatic, it's the only reason Technolisa survived 2 the minutes after logging. ... you will see more and more marketing which in turn will bring you more players to torture.
Ana Khouri	Posted - 2003.09.12 20:26:00 - [12] It will not be enough, especially with this activation of a alt to speed up the vanishing of your ship. free speech not allowed here
dalman	Posted - 2003.09.12 20:32:00 - [13] Quote: "But it also takes damn many people to be able to destroy a solo Scorpion with loads of hardeners before his ship disappears." Yes this is very annoying. If I am engaging a scorpion and doing only ~50-70 dmg a hit I just stop the engagement and pick a different target or leave the scene if solo. I am so glad the hardener stacking is going to be a relative thing of the past next patch. In all, 2 minutes should be plenty of time to destroy a target with the changes next patch imo. If you're doing 50-70 damage you should be glad... Try to fight one of those 1vs1 when they are going with 2 EM 2 thermal 1 kinetic, 1 booster, 1 webber and 1 scrambler. It's not fun. M.I.A. since 2004-07-30
Joshua Calvert	Posted - 2003.09.12 21:36:00 - [14] Scorpion is going to be the hardest ship to equip after next patch. LEEEEERRRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOOYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY!
Tabius	Posted - 2003.09.12 21:41:00 - [15] I think that any timer increase needs to be really carefully considered... I remember other games where there was a timer before you left the game... people figured out how to quickly find and attack an opponents IP address, thus ensuring victory in a battle against a helpless foe... Sometimes you have to accept the downside of people logging to escape combat rather than give hackers a new way of cheating.
Joshua Calvert	Posted - 2003.09.12 21:43:00 - [16] Jim Raynor can vouch for lame IP spamming attacks. LEEEEERRRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOOYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY!
Shani	Posted - 2003.09.12 22:37:00 - [17] how about if a player logs/ctds while in combat, their ship doesnt take damage for 2mins, giving them time to relog, but the ship never disappears. after the 2mins its tough luck. plus your guns should stop firing to signify your target has ctd/logged so you dont waste cap in the 2min no damage period.
Drutort	Posted - 2003.09.12 22:42:00 - [18] people already talked about this... the best solution fair for both sides is warping out... auto warping when the PC player either CTD's and or logs off... that way if you got scrambler etc... it would be fair game to jam that person and kill them... then after say 3+ min the ship will go away? it would be cool to have AI try to save your ship meaning turning on tac's sheild booster or warp core stabilizers... its very simple IF/then checks... and its fair... because the player is not present so with all this high tech... you would think that the AI in the ship would try to save is self!!! thats the type of solution i see... in the game options you would have a AI option list... to put things in priority and what to do and what not to do based on some BASIC items... support Idea: QuickInfo an alternative to ShowInfo my MoBlog
Ana Khouri	Posted - 2003.09.12 22:44:00 - [19] Quote: I think that any timer increase needs to be really carefully considered... I remember other games where there was a timer before you left the game... people figured out how to quickly find and attack an opponents IP address, thus ensuring victory in a battle against a helpless foe... Sometimes you have to accept the downside of people logging to escape combat rather than give hackers a new way of cheating. I disagree. Yes, it is possible to kill one's connection delibertly with pingflodding, but using this as argument that keeping the logouttimer so low that a BS can not be destroyed in that time unless by a big firepower is wrong. As it is now - if you are attacked by ANYTHING exept another BS geared for damage and log out you are saved. But pingflodders would use such a setup - you don't have to think about defending yourself or jamming a target when you know it will be down anyway. And personally I'm much more willing to risk to run into the 1 in 1000 chance encountering someone using this tactics to kill my BS instead of being unable to kill any BS I encounter without massive backup, because it will vanish before it is destroyed. free speech not allowed here
Hematic	Posted - 2003.09.12 22:50:00 - [20] Quote: What about when people CTD in mid-battle? How would you differentiate between the two? Hitting esc and clicking quit would be a good start. Here's my example: A couple corp mates were hunting this pirate called 'thepoet'. We jumped just behind him into a new sector. We came out at different jump-ins. Our scorp pilot came in on top of him. Poet starts firing, our scorp gets the complete lock-down on him. As soon as our scorp pilot gave word, the armaggedon pilot warped to him in gang. By the time the the armaggedon got on scene and was able to establish a lock, he got like 2-3 volleys off and then Thepoet's dominix disappeared. Got him down to about 10-15% hull left so it was close. Either way, I see it as an exploit. If people can live with themselves more power to 'em. It's a game and as such I play by the rules. When people choose not to, then it is their own karma they will have to deal with, and no amount of ISK is gonna fix that sec hit.
Shannon Foraker	Posted - 2003.09.13 00:22:00 - [21] Using your alt to kick your other char off quicker was fixed in last patch... at one stage I managed to get all 3 of my chars online. The disconnect timer is already set to 2 mins when you are in combat. Maybe it needs to be increased. Dont quote me on this but Im pretty positive that in UO it was 5 mins. ========================= Shannon Foraker Tactical Operations
Shannon Foraker	Posted - 2003.09.13 00:24:00 - [22] hmmm my post vanished.... ========================= Shannon Foraker Tactical Operations
EvePlayer 13	Posted - 2003.09.13 01:11:00 - [23] LOL if you can't kill a ship that is just sitting still and not returning fire in 2 min then youbest go back to empire space anyway.
Hematic	Posted - 2003.09.13 01:43:00 - [24] Quote: LOL if you can't kill a ship that is just sitting still and not returning fire in 2 min then youbest go back to empire space anyway. You put out more than 14,000 damage in 120 seconds in a scorpian?
Archemedes	Posted - 2003.09.13 02:06:00 - [25] Quote: Quote: LOL if you can't kill a ship that is just sitting still and not returning fire in 2 min then youbest go back to empire space anyway. You put out more than 14,000 damage in 120 seconds in a scorpian? You hunt battleships solo in a Scorpion? EW ships are support vessels... they need a gunship with them to be really effective. Sure logging off is a cheesy tactic, but as long as CTDs are more common than intentional logoffs there had better be a chance to keep your ship when it happens.
Ana Khouri	Posted - 2003.09.13 02:41:00 - [26] Edited by: Ana Khouri on 13/09/2003 02:43:06 The problem is that it isn't even 2 minutes - if you log out and login with another char your ship vanishes instantly. You get times of 30-60s then. Another logout story, from me, copied from an older topic: Quote: Two of my mates were hunting yesterday - PVP. Going through systems, scanning, the works. Finally they found a BS with harvesters out alone in a system - obviously mining. The pinpointed him at one of the plants belts, checked all - nothing. Finally, after around 45 mins of scanning the found him 750 km away from a belt - he was in a hidden belt, mining bistot without any npc pirate interference. Using MWD they slowly approached him and finally warped directly to him as he appeared on their normal scanners. They jammed & dampened him (a member of the space wolfes, btw) and started to fire. The BS pilot logged out as soon as he realized that he was jammed. And disappeared around 60 secs later with 20% armor left. Those cruisers were a rupture and moa, btw, I'm not talking about 2 undergunned BB here. The big maiority of the CTD happen now in fleet battles anyway, if you CTD there you don't have a life expectancy of 30 seconds, let alone 2 mins. A increase of the logout timer wouldn't really cause more death there. @ Archemedes: He was speaking about killing an scorpion, not hunting in one. putting 14k damage in a scorpion = inflicting 14k damage on a scorpion free speech not allowed here
SlightlyMad	Posted - 2003.09.13 07:45:00 - [27] Hey Wretch Its very good that you feel that way. Because after patch, you'll get armour ***s that can repair ~200 armor per second. And have phat resistance in all categories -"You know, we play the "good guys" right? We kill pirates, griefers, retards and general subversive elements in the EVE-Community. To the rest, we are friendly and always prepared to help out. Peo
Dukath	Posted - 2003.09.13 07:50:00 - [28] I believe ships should NOT time out at all. There are stations for a reason, wanna quit the game then dock. YOu wanna go to sleep while in space? then make sure you are at a relative safe spot before you log off. What to do about ctds? I would use this rule, if you quit your ship will remain in the same place as you are. (with a normal shutdown you can have the game send a message to the server that it is a normal shutdown, and ctrl-alt-del first tries to enforce a normal shutdown and only if that fails kills the process) while a ctd should have one of the following. 1) CTD while in a fight with NPC (and only NPC), but NOT navy or concord. -> teleport the ship to a random place in space, at least 100000km away from from any warpable point 2) CTD while in space but not in combat, -> teleport the ship to a random place in space, at least 100000 km away from any warpable point. 3) CTD while in combat with PC players: this is the hard part but i like the following situation. -1 minute invulnerability (or maybe 30 seconds would be enough) to allow you to log back in. cap/shield DOES NOT recharge, all modules deactivate, target locks are not lost though. As soon as the player logs back in the invulnerability drops if its before the 1 minute is over. There is only 1 way this can be abused and that is if you want reinforcements to arive, then 1 minute could make a difference, but then again, you would need to actually reset your computer or pull the network connection and wait for a timeout to accomplish that. I'm not sure the extra long time it takes to reboot would be worth the risk. Logging off in deep space should not be SAFE. Anyone with enough will to track you down and destroy your ship while you are sleeping should be able to. Its easy enough to warp to mid space making it extremely hard to track you down.
Ana Khouri	Posted - 2003.09.13 10:33:00 - [29] Er.. For 3.) you just need to quit Eve forcefully (Task manager; close eve directly in the windowed modus,..) free speech not allowed here
Dukath	Posted - 2003.09.13 11:38:00 - [30] hmm maybe they changed it but i was under the impression that a program that got 'end tasked' in win98 tried to close down correctly and only if that doesn't work they would be killed. I know that in linux the program gets a kill signal and still can clean up before quitting (only the kill -KILL option would really kill the process) not sure how exactly it works in winxp though so i could be wrong.

Pages: [1] 2 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.