EVE Search - Logoffski exploit, video proof.

Check My IP Information

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

Logoffski exploit, video proof.

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 .. 11 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 2 post(s)
Benny Ohu The Lazy Dragoons True Apathy 22	Posted - 2012.03.24 12:08:00 - [31] - Quote Spectre80 wrote: oh. cripes im sure all of them 10+ tornados would get instapopped by lowsec gateguns in that time of 15 seconds it takes to gank that freighter (really?). or maybe they can do that allready in highsec in that same time sacrificing all the ships at same time but still getting the kill? This wasn't a suicide gank, I get the idea it was a bit more of a roam. A target was found and a tarp set with the ships they had? (Is this right?) Those saying the pirates were not doing it right, from what I gather it was not your standard gatecamp because the pirates had to outsmart the scout. Regardless of that, the point is, if a freighter pilot is dumb enough to jump into a lowsec camp (or the pirates tarp him somehow), should the freighter simply be able to see them from cloak and say, "well if I just log out I have a good chance of surviving"? This is exactly the sort of thing the 15-minute timer was implemented to stop.
RougeOperator Autocannons Anonymous Late Night Alliance 165	Posted - 2012.03.24 12:36:00 - [32] - Quote Benny Ohu wrote: Spectre80 wrote: oh. cripes im sure all of them 10+ tornados would get instapopped by lowsec gateguns in that time of 15 seconds it takes to gank that freighter (really?). or maybe they can do that allready in highsec in that same time sacrificing all the ships at same time but still getting the kill? This wasn't a suicide gank, I get the idea it was a bit more of a roam. A target was found and a tarp set with the ships they had? (Is this right?) Those saying the pirates were not doing it right, from what I gather it was not your standard gatecamp because the pirates had to outsmart the scout. Regardless of that, the point is, if a freighter pilot is dumb enough to jump into a lowsec camp (or the pirates tarp him somehow), should the freighter simply be able to see them from cloak and say, "well if I just log out I have a good chance of surviving"? This is exactly the sort of thing the 15-minute timer was implemented to stop. Pretty much. The rest are just bad trolls. I want CCP to say that it is the implicit intent to let someone log off to get out of trouble free.
Doc Severide Caldari Provisions Caldari State 49	Posted - 2012.03.24 14:01:00 - [33] - Quote RougeOperator wrote: This is a black eye for CCP. LOL Melodramatic tripe...
Cyprus Black Golden Shellbacks Surely You're Joking 160	Posted - 2012.03.24 14:07:00 - [34] - Quote RougeOperator wrote: I want CCP to agree with everything that I say, regardless of the valid reason why it is the way it is. Fixed that for you. I mean really now, isn't this what you're really trying to say without saying it? Follow my EvE blog at: http://cyprusblack.blogspot.com/
Just Alter Futures Abstractions 0	Posted - 2012.03.24 14:39:00 - [35] - Quote "If you got a bad connection that's not my fault. If you got such a bad connection that it crashes when you jump to a system you deserve to have your stuff blown up." shieeeeeeeeeeeeeeeet. that's one of the most ******** piece of crap i've ever read. i really dont understand why people like you think that it'd be a problem if they stop playing or someone should care about their whining. gtfo.
Skex Relbore Space Exploitation Inc 142	Posted - 2012.03.24 14:43:00 - [36] - Quote RougeOperator wrote: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=USepJOINZKk&feature=g-u-u&context=G2a828a3FUAAAAAAAAAA]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=USepJOINZKk&feature=g-u-u&context=G2a828a3FUAAAAAAAAAA Guy jumps a freighter into low sec. He logs out before even loading the system. His freighter decloaks. One of our guys point it. Thinking we have 15 min to kill it. Warp in and start shooting it and less the a minute with only 15% hull or so left if that, it just vanishes. If this is working as intended CCP can get bent. From the wiki PvP Log Off Timer (15 Minutes) The PvP log off timer is triggered by any aggressive action a pilot takes or is taken against him. If a pilot with an active PvP log off timer logs out from the game, his ship will remain in space for at least 15 minutes afterward. If the pilot is shot again after logging off within the 15 minutes, the timer will reset to 15 minutes. This timer will renew for the capsule, should the ship be destroyed. The wiki indicates its an exploit. Cry Moar, You aren't entitled to a kill. If you couldn't kill a pilot-less freighter in the before the it despawned you are fail. It's impossible to tell whether that ship was pilot-less due to an accidental DC or intentional. What we know is that by the time your tackler landed point it didn't have a pilot else you would have had your 15 minutes to kill it. Oh yeah "hull tanked" lol. Here's a little clue for you. The reason it melted so fast is that it didn't have any pilot skills applying to its stats. A providence with no skills has 154k ehp compared to 193k with all 5s (ignoring implants which would bump that up more) so by logging off/disconnecting the pilot in question already gave you a 40k head start. It was dumb luck on his part and insufficient dps on your part that denied you a kill. Not the mechanic.
Kessiaan Greater Order Of Destruction Happy Endings 121	Posted - 2012.03.24 14:46:00 - [37] - Quote This isn't an exploit. I know of one corp that routinely baits with a freighter in this manner. (at least htey used to, we killed it anyway. And then died in a fire. But it was a lolop anyway so whatever). The changes to the logoff mechanics only apply to ships already aggressed are specifically intended to keep people from logging off their supercaps so they'll disappear before enough backup shows up to break their tank. For the run-of-the-mill logoffski there was no change. I agree that's its stupid and if someone in low/null really needs to go they should they can log off in a safe and take their chances that someone might probe and aggress them in the next minute, and I don't think the game should be balanced around people with ****** internet (that's their own problem), but that's just my opinion. My killboard - http://eve.battleclinic.com/killboard/combat_record.php?type=player&name=Kessiaan
Corina Jarr Spazzoid Enterprises Purpose Built 618	Posted - 2012.03.24 14:50:00 - [38] - Quote Hmmm I'm on the fence with this issue. I do think that if not aggression before log off, you should only have a minute as it is now. However, using gate cloak to prevent aggression before log off is kind of... lame. A good compromise, IMO, would be that a log off during a session timer (gate jump, ship change in space, and undock are the only ones I can think of...) would incur the same time penalty as log off under aggression. However, a log off without the session timer or aggression would be the same s it is now.
Othran Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic 173	Posted - 2012.03.24 14:51:00 - [39] - Quote You can complain all you like but the mechanic won't get changed. Its been like this forever and the reason is simple - there have been umpteen examples of modules being able to crash clients through bugged effects. It gets abused to hell and back - I lost a few wolfs that way to an Aussie corp (you know who you are) in FW couple of years back for example and I wasn't trying to avoid combat. On one petition the GM said they could see me manually logout, which was rather odd as I hadn't logged out before I died - the UI was unresponsive and the game crashed just after I died. While there is the slightest possibility that the client has crashed then CCP will err on the side of caution. Hell at least once they're aggressed you got 15 minutes, so stop complaining - that's a MASSIVE improvement on what went before.
Mr Epeen It's All About Me 1001	Posted - 2012.03.24 14:58:00 - [40] - Quote When some people don't get a kill, they learn and adapt. Others come running to the forum and cry to change the rules just for them. Mr Epeen Me too!-á I ate one sour, too!

Ptraci 3 R Corporation The Irukandji 431	Posted - 2012.03.24 15:02:00 - [41] - Quote Othran wrote: You can complain all you like but the mechanic won't get changed. Exactly. As others pointed out, more DPS would have fixed this "problem". HTFU.
Aqriue Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation 498	Posted - 2012.03.24 15:03:00 - [42] - Quote RougeOperator wrote: Self entitled failure beliving everything is his, fails to plan, and whines about it. News at 11! Lets see what did I not miss 1. Gay **** music 2. Oracle having six lows, had exactly 1 mod the DCU. So, where is the damage mods? The pilot of the oracle in the video deserves to be shot for not putting his all into it and flying risk adverse (afraid of losing 5 mill in T2 mods or like 500k in meta 1) 3. Did everyone have their guns over loaded? I saw the Oracle pilot did, but WTF would you group it three times. More time to activate each one instead of just one group and fire - BTW, pre-activate and they fire almost right after lock. 4. Faction ammo? Can't tell, but 15%...*** idiots if you didn't use it and it makes a hell of a difference. 5. Damage implants? Yeah, you don't deserve a damn thing because you assume "Hey, 15 minutes...we got all the time in the *** world!" and look what happened...just apply maximum damage in the shortest amount of time to burn that * into a wreck. You flying without even a 3% laser mod on that oracle...it could of made the difference but if you fly empty because you are risk adverse that is your damn problem it disseappered. 6. Gay **** music. Don't ever assume you are entitled because somehow CCP said it was...aggression was forced explicity for Titans since all smaller ships burn because they have thick ass tanks nobody could kill in 15 minutes and if the Titan pilot fired even once...it wasn't going anywhere...everyone else in smaller ships got applied as well. Freighter pilots cannot fire back, so they cannot get mutual fire aggression and that is why you lost assuming you would win. Even I learned that from someone bitching about it like a week after the change.
MadMuppet Kerguelen Station 187	Posted - 2012.03.24 15:03:00 - [43] - Quote If only the victim had a even remote chance to see the other side of the gate he wouldn't have to use this game mechanic as it currently functions. Posting in another "The game mechanics always screw me over, change them" thread. I don't always finish my commentary, but when I do
Mfume Apocal Origin. Black Legion. 352	Posted - 2012.03.24 15:17:00 - [44] - Quote Aqriue wrote: 2. Oracle having six lows, had exactly 1 mod the DCU. So, where is the damage mods? He has it set to hide passive modules.
RougeOperator Autocannons Anonymous Late Night Alliance 165	Posted - 2012.03.24 15:25:00 - [45] - Quote MadMuppet wrote: If only the victim had a even remote chance to see the other side of the gate he wouldn't have to use this game mechanic as it currently functions. Posting in another "The game mechanics always screw me over, change them" thread. he did he had a scout. We spent an hour avoiding only to have this Bull crap exploit used. using the cloak mechanics to log off by DCing yourself before you declock is bull. Its an i win button. All those saying get more DPS are just trolls. He should have been stuck for 15 min end of story. No risk game-play mechanics in low sec. You guys must be joking. This completely runs counter to how this game works on so many levels. Odds are you all just have freight alts that you do this lame crap with and have sand in the ginas about someone exposing the exploit. So what is it CCP devs, is this working as intended that you can jump a gate DC before disco and just get away even thought the other parties spent a lot of time and effort to get the kill. Are you saying your advocate DCing on purpose as a valid game tactic? Or is this just some stuff you will give us more hypocritical baloney. Is using the log off cloak mechanics on gate an exploit or not.
BeanBagKing Terra Incognita Intrepid Crossing 126	Posted - 2012.03.24 15:30:00 - [46] - Quote People have already basically answered this, but to throw another reference at the OP. https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=165121#post165121 CCP Tallest wrote: Jack Dant wrote: Sounds good, but will this also affect people who log off without aggression, and would normally dissapear within 1 minute? If you have not registered aggression at the point of logoff, you will disappear as normal. This cannot be extended by post-logoff aggression.
BeanBagKing Terra Incognita Intrepid Crossing 126	Posted - 2012.03.24 15:30:00 - [47] - Quote double post
Mfume Apocal Origin. Black Legion. 352	Posted - 2012.03.24 15:32:00 - [48] - Quote At any rate, this is just an extension of the mechanic by which already logged off players cannot be aggressed by any (to my knowledge) legitimate means. This isn't the same as extending aggression gained while still logged in. Given that allowed logged-off players to gain aggression would lead to some utterly hilarious exploits on it's own, I'm betting CCP will let this particular side-effect slide.
RougeOperator Autocannons Anonymous Late Night Alliance 165	Posted - 2012.03.24 15:34:00 - [49] - Quote BeanBagKing wrote: People have already basically answered this, but to throw another reference at the OP. https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=165121#post165121 CCP Tallest wrote: Jack Dant wrote: Sounds good, but will this also affect people who log off without aggression, and would normally dissapear within 1 minute? If you have not registered aggression at the point of logoff, you will disappear as normal. This cannot be extended by post-logoff aggression. No they need to specifically answer to jumping a gate and logging off while before decloak. There is a difference between logging off getting dced while in warp while everyone can still see you and abusing a game mechanic in a way it was not intended to be used. This is what CCP needs to answer. Is using this mechanic in the way it was used in the video CCP sponsored. Is logging off a to avoid a fight something CCP supports. Thats what they need to answer.
Mfume Apocal Origin. Black Legion. 352	Posted - 2012.03.24 15:36:00 - [50] - Quote RougeOperator wrote: BeanBagKing wrote: People have already basically answered this, but to throw another reference at the OP. https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=165121#post165121 CCP Tallest wrote: Jack Dant wrote: Sounds good, but will this also affect people who log off without aggression, and would normally dissapear within 1 minute? If you have not registered aggression at the point of logoff, you will disappear as normal. This cannot be extended by post-logoff aggression. No they need to specifically answer to jumping a gate and logging off while before decloak. There is a difference between logging off getting dced while in warp while everyone can still see you and abusing a game mechanic in a way it was not intended to be used. This is what CCP needs to answer. Is using this mechanic in the way it was used in the video CCP sponsored. Is logging off a to avoid a fight something CCP supports. Thats what they need to answer. Logged off players cannot (legitimately) gain aggression under any circumstances. This is working as intended.

RougeOperator Autocannons Anonymous Late Night Alliance 165	Posted - 2012.03.24 15:36:00 - [51] - Quote Mfume Apocal wrote: At any rate, this is just an extension of the mechanic by which already logged off players cannot be aggressed by any (to my knowledge) legitimate means. This isn't the same as extending aggression gained while still logged in. Given that allowed logged-off players to gain aggression would lead to some utterly hilarious exploits on it's own, I'm betting CCP will let this particular side-effect slide. No F that. Kill the 1 min despawn. Its 15 min or nothing.
Mfume Apocal Origin. Black Legion. 352	Posted - 2012.03.24 15:37:00 - [52] - Quote RougeOperator wrote: Mfume Apocal wrote: At any rate, this is just an extension of the mechanic by which already logged off players cannot be aggressed by any (to my knowledge) legitimate means. This isn't the same as extending aggression gained while still logged in. Given that allowed logged-off players to gain aggression would lead to some utterly hilarious exploits on it's own, I'm betting CCP will let this particular side-effect slide. No F that. Kill the 1 min despawn. Its 15 min or nothing. You do not want this. I assure you.
RougeOperator Autocannons Anonymous Late Night Alliance 165	Posted - 2012.03.24 15:38:00 - [53] - Quote Mfume Apocal wrote: RougeOperator wrote: BeanBagKing wrote: People have already basically answered this, but to throw another reference at the OP. https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=165121#post165121 CCP Tallest wrote: Jack Dant wrote: Sounds good, but will this also affect people who log off without aggression, and would normally dissapear within 1 minute? If you have not registered aggression at the point of logoff, you will disappear as normal. This cannot be extended by post-logoff aggression. No they need to specifically answer to jumping a gate and logging off while before decloak. There is a difference between logging off getting dced while in warp while everyone can still see you and abusing a game mechanic in a way it was not intended to be used. This is what CCP needs to answer. Is using this mechanic in the way it was used in the video CCP sponsored. Is logging off a to avoid a fight something CCP supports. Thats what they need to answer. Logged off players cannot (legitimately) gain aggression under any circumstances. This is working as intended. No CCP needs to state if the specific instance on the gate and Logging out before you decloaked is AS INTENDED. If Yes I unsub my accounts. Cause thats utter crap.
RougeOperator Autocannons Anonymous Late Night Alliance 165	Posted - 2012.03.24 15:38:00 - [54] - Quote Mfume Apocal wrote: RougeOperator wrote: Mfume Apocal wrote: At any rate, this is just an extension of the mechanic by which already logged off players cannot be aggressed by any (to my knowledge) legitimate means. This isn't the same as extending aggression gained while still logged in. Given that allowed logged-off players to gain aggression would lead to some utterly hilarious exploits on it's own, I'm betting CCP will let this particular side-effect slide. No F that. Kill the 1 min despawn. Its 15 min or nothing. You do not want this. I assure you. No I really do.
dethleffs Immortalis Inc. Shadow Cartel 27	Posted - 2012.03.24 15:39:00 - [55] - Quote sheeesssshh... This has been debated for centuries... What do you want ccp to do eh? The logs won't show anything useful if a player exits game - and if it would, people would just jank out the network cable and d/cin that way. Get over it and get more firepower instead of whining on the forums you poof
Benny Ohu The Lazy Dragoons True Apathy 24	Posted - 2012.03.24 15:40:00 - [56] - Quote RougeOperator wrote: No F that. Kill the 1 min despawn. Its 15 min or nothing. No, this is a bit too far, even if the gatecloak/logoff is stupid
RougeOperator Autocannons Anonymous Late Night Alliance 165	Posted - 2012.03.24 15:41:00 - [57] - Quote dethleffs wrote: sheeesssshh... This has been debated for centuries... What do you want ccp to do eh? The logs won't show anything useful if a player exits game - and if it would, people would just jank out the network cable and d/cin that way. Get over it and get more firepower instead of whining on the forums you poof Wow I thought you were kidding at first but your serious? yank yoru cable to get away. You should die if someone catches you. I thought eh 15 min thing was how it worked. I dont care if they make that the way it works fore everything cause that's what i and everyone that was with me thought it worked to begin with. Nothing would change for us. Only the losers that use such cheap grab ass exploits.
RougeOperator Autocannons Anonymous Late Night Alliance 165	Posted - 2012.03.24 15:42:00 - [58] - Quote Benny Ohu wrote: RougeOperator wrote: No F that. Kill the 1 min despawn. Its 15 min or nothing. No, this is a bit too far, even if the gatecloak/logoff is stupid How me an most i play with thought it worked to begin with. Nothing changes for us.
dischordia Knights Of Anarchy CORE Alliance 3	Posted - 2012.03.24 15:44:00 - [59] - Quote RougeOperator wrote: If Yes I unsub my accounts. Cause thats utter crap. Dont let the door hit you on the behind on the way out. if you have aggression you stay there, if you crash or log with out it your out in 1 min. its not fair on the the people who crash if they crash and loose what every they were flying if they didn't have aggression. Yes I know its not "real world" but you have to remember this is a computer game. Just my two pence, the mechanic is fine as it is. now time for the CCP Keynote What we're actually doing is removing both hisec and PvP from the game entirely. It seems like the fairest way to solve this problem. - CCP Grayscale -á- CCP troll BEST troll <3
Citrute Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic 6	Posted - 2012.03.24 15:56:00 - [60] - Quote RougeOperator wrote: If Yes I unsub my accounts. Your stuff, may i have it please?



Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 .. 11 :: 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.