| Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 11 .. 11 :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 2 post(s) |
|
CCP Goliath
C C P
C C P Alliance
107
   |
Posted - 2012.03.25 17:12:00 -
[121] - Quote
Things are getting a bit heated in this thread, so I wanted to say that while I can't give a definitive answer to the question of this behaviour changing or not, I can promise to raise it tomorrow morning with the design guys and get an answer for you.
CCP Goliath | QA Team Lead |
|
Roime
Shiva Furnace
311
|
Posted - 2012.03.25 17:22:00 -
[122] - Quote
@ Rouge,
let me try again.
1) Is logging off to save your ship lame and pansyass? Hell yes, it's for people without a pair.
2) Is is possible to prevent this while protecting people who DC or have to log off for legitimate reasons? No.
3) Is it still possible to kill someone who uses this lame tactic? Yes.
@ CCP Goliath,
One thing that could make using logoffski less feasible for conducting lame behaviour is to remove keyboard shortcut for logging off, and force a warning popup:
"You are currently in open space, and after logging off your ship will stay in space for 60 seconds- are you sure you want to do this now?"
Which defaults to "No", and no checkbox to disable this. This would mean very little extra clicking for legitimate use, but the added seconds could mean the difference between getting aggroed and successfully logoffsking to avoid death.
|
BeanBagKing
Terra Incognita
Intrepid Crossing
126
|
Posted - 2012.03.25 17:47:00 -
[123] - Quote
CCP Goliath wrote:Things are getting a bit heated in this thread, so I wanted to say that while I can't give a definitive answer to the question of this behaviour changing or not, I can promise to raise it tomorrow morning with the design guys and get an answer for you.
Goliath, if you're considering raising the issue tomorrow there's only one thing that I think should be brought up. That is jumping through a gate to clear aggression. It seems like a bad mechanic to me. All too often we've had someone jump into us, we've aggressed him and had him burn back to the gate, jump through, and log off.
I understand the desire to make it fair to people who get disconnected by accident (and all to often it does seem like crashes occur on a jump), but it doesn't seem like like the intended game design that you can have aggression one second, jump a gate, and not have it the next.
I think it would also be worth discussing aggression after log off, although this isn't something I have a problem with, because I have had targets escape this way, we land on them and put 2 rounds into them right before they disappear. Unlike OP I don't really have a problem with it, it sucks, but it's part of the game. Again though, I don't think that logging off was intended to be part of the game mechanics. Basically I'm saying that it's worth talking about, but I'll roll with whatever you guys decide.
Like I said before, I support things the way they currently are, but if you changed something, I'd be fine with that too. Iteration and all that right :) nothing wrong with going back and looking at mechanics and wondering if they are doing the job they were intended to do. |
Muestereate
Two Geezers in Space
16
|
Posted - 2012.03.25 18:08:00 -
[124] - Quote
Freighter killer tears best tears.
He's got no guns, no modules, no velocity, no align time. |
RougeOperator
Autocannons Anonymous
Late Night Alliance
170
|
Posted - 2012.03.25 18:09:00 -
[125] - Quote
Roime wrote:@ Rouge,
let me try again.
1) Is logging off to save your ship lame and pansyass? Hell yes, it's for people without a pair.
2) Is is possible to prevent this while protecting people who DC or have to log off for legitimate reasons? No.
3) Is it still possible to kill someone who uses this lame tactic? Yes.
@ CCP Goliath,
One thing that could make using logoffski less feasible for conducting lame behaviour is to remove keyboard shortcut for logging off, and force a warning popup:
"You are currently in open space, and after logging off your ship will stay in space for 60 seconds- are you sure you want to do this now?"
Which defaults to "No", and no checkbox to disable this. This would mean very little extra clicking for legitimate use, but the added seconds could mean the difference between getting aggroed and successfully logoffsking to avoid death.
Not when you are using an exploit cloak trick. Nothing changes or addresses the exploit with your solution.
|
RougeOperator
Autocannons Anonymous
Late Night Alliance
170
|
Posted - 2012.03.25 18:11:00 -
[126] - Quote
CCP Goliath wrote:Things are getting a bit heated in this thread, so I wanted to say that while I can't give a definitive answer to the question of this behaviour changing or not, I can promise to raise it tomorrow morning with the design guys and get an answer for you.
Guess no one reported that this was going on before now.
But this trick clearly runs counter to good gameplay. |
Messoroz
AQUILA INC
0ccupational Hazzard
161
|
Posted - 2012.03.25 18:17:00 -
[127] - Quote
Only ones complaining are those who sit on gates 23/7 hoping for kills. I for one have never had the issue with something logoffskiing when they had no aggression. |
RougeOperator
Autocannons Anonymous
Late Night Alliance
170
|
Posted - 2012.03.25 18:34:00 -
[128] - Quote
Messoroz wrote:Only ones complaining are those who sit on gates 23/7 hoping for kills. I for one have never had the issue with something logoffskiing when they had no aggression.
Bull and Crap.
Tell another lie. |
Roime
Shiva Furnace
311
|
Posted - 2012.03.25 18:47:00 -
[129] - Quote
You know, after all this poopslinging I'm going to side by you and present a simple fix that would not affect legit use of logging off, or the current timers:
In addition to disabling the key shortcut and forcing the modal popup, you would get the standard popup when trying to log off under gate cloak:
"The cloaking you are doing prevents you from performing this action." (sp)
You'd just need to break your gate cloak, and then go through the same hoops, opening a tiny window for tackler to aggress the Mr. Logoffski.
|
Kyn Kailata
PonyTek
2
|
Posted - 2012.03.25 18:57:00 -
[130] - Quote
what i dont get is that you say you planed it for an hour so that he would not do this exact thing. but why would he scout himself into local and then just log of? you did your little tarp wrong, simple as. i can agree that its a gay mechanic but there is really no way to remove it without punishing other people. can you imagine how many would die just becuse they had to go and logged of in a stationles lowsec or 0.0 system only to get scaned 10min later. seriously tho, you could have killed that guy if your redemer guy didnt decloak to early... |
|
|
killorbekilled TBE
Dare Bears
32
|
Posted - 2012.03.25 19:00:00 -
[131] - Quote
all i saw was a defencless boat own an entire fleet and then the fleet crying **** on the forums
huh? |
Simi Kusoni
HelloKittyFanclub
360
|
Posted - 2012.03.25 19:13:00 -
[132] - Quote
CCP Goliath wrote:Things are getting a bit heated in this thread, so I wanted to say that while I can't give a definitive answer to the question of this behaviour changing or not, I can promise to raise it tomorrow morning with the design guys and get an answer for you.
Nice, thank you :)
How about giving people 5 seconds aggression for logging off as a fix? Any player aggression that occurs in that time would extend the aggression timer, and the ship would not disappear. People genuinely disconnecting would still vanish within a minute, unless they were five seconds away from being pointed or attacked.
Also, I know 5 seconds is a short time, but it's long enough to attack a ship as it warps off gate, and it's short enough that you can't de-cloak a recon and take advantage if you witness a player disconnect. I think the impact of such a change would be minimal, I may be missing something though.
(Knowing Eve, I'm probably missing something. Damn you lovable exploit finding bastads.)
-áhttp://i.imgur.com/aWNfM.jpg |
Taihbea
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
21
|
Posted - 2012.03.25 19:17:00 -
[133] - Quote
RougeOperator wrote:Messoroz wrote:Only ones complaining are those who sit on gates 23/7 hoping for kills. I for one have never had the issue with something logoffskiing when they had no aggression. Bull and Crap. Tell another lie.
Dude you have some serious "WTF I suck and imma cry for a NERFZOR on dah FORUMZ" issues.
Go **** yourself you noob and learn to play. |
Skydell
Space Mermaids
Somethin Awfull Forums
181
|
Posted - 2012.03.25 19:28:00 -
[134] - Quote
I can appreciate the disgust of being that close and having it blink out but serious, you guys melted that ship fast. He fluked a logoffski. If you guys had been 2 more Oracle stong he wouldn't have made it.
I doubt the guy expected his Provi to live, that's the thing. He jumped through, saw the gate camp and just closed the client. I would have done the same. I don't think it was a tactical attempt to save his ship. He just didn't want to watch it pop knowing he wasn't going to be able to do anything about it. |
Gogela
Freeport Exploration
Loosely Affiliated Pirates Alliance
468
|
Posted - 2012.03.25 19:29:00 -
[135] - Quote
Obviously the freighter should be dead... I'm sorry for your loss pirates... that was robbery (...or rather it should have been!). 
|
Simi Kusoni
HelloKittyFanclub
360
|
Posted - 2012.03.25 19:32:00 -
[136] - Quote
Skydell wrote:I doubt the guy expected his Provi to live, that's the thing. He jumped through, saw the gate camp and just closed the client. I would have done the same. I don't think it was a tactical attempt to save his ship. He just didn't want to watch it pop knowing he wasn't going to be able to do anything about it.
Nah, it's a well known tactic. I've used it myself, and had it used on me too. Closing the client isn't a rage quit, it's your last hope of getting out.
-áhttp://i.imgur.com/aWNfM.jpg |
Creat Posudol
Destined for Greatness Inc.
47
|
Posted - 2012.03.25 19:52:00 -
[137] - Quote
Simi Kusoni wrote:Skydell wrote:I doubt the guy expected his Provi to live, that's the thing. He jumped through, saw the gate camp and just closed the client. I would have done the same. I don't think it was a tactical attempt to save his ship. He just didn't want to watch it pop knowing he wasn't going to be able to do anything about it. Nah, it's a well known tactic. I've used it myself, and had it used on me too. Closing the client isn't a rage quit, it's your last hope of getting out.
That in itself is a problem. Closing the client should NEVER be a better option than to stay in the game. It shouldn't provide safety, it should be worse (if possible) to just close the client. Especially in a situation where you know you will lose your ship (and content) closing the client shouldn't provide a glimmer of hope for you to keep it, it just doesn't make any sense... |
Simi Kusoni
HelloKittyFanclub
360
|
Posted - 2012.03.25 19:54:00 -
[138] - Quote
Creat Posudol wrote:Simi Kusoni wrote:Skydell wrote:I doubt the guy expected his Provi to live, that's the thing. He jumped through, saw the gate camp and just closed the client. I would have done the same. I don't think it was a tactical attempt to save his ship. He just didn't want to watch it pop knowing he wasn't going to be able to do anything about it. Nah, it's a well known tactic. I've used it myself, and had it used on me too. Closing the client isn't a rage quit, it's your last hope of getting out. That in itself is a problem. Closing the client should NEVER be a better option than to stay in the game. It shouldn't provide safety, it should be worse (if possible) to just close the client. Especially in a situation where you know you will lose your ship (and content) closing the client shouldn't provide a glimmer of hope for you to keep it, it just doesn't make any sense...
I know, I was just pointing out that it wasn't a case of rage quitting 
-áhttp://i.imgur.com/aWNfM.jpg |
Gyozshil154
EVE University
Ivy League
2
|
Posted - 2012.03.25 20:03:00 -
[139] - Quote
BeanBagKing wrote:Goliath, if you're considering raising the issue tomorrow there's only one thing that I think should be brought up. That is jumping through a gate to clear aggression. It seems like a bad mechanic to me. All too often we've had someone jump into us, we've aggressed him and had him burn back to the gate, jump through, and log off.
Because there are no ways in the game to slow people down. |
Simi Kusoni
HelloKittyFanclub
360
|
Posted - 2012.03.25 20:36:00 -
[140] - Quote
Gyozshil154 wrote:BeanBagKing wrote:Goliath, if you're considering raising the issue tomorrow there's only one thing that I think should be brought up. That is jumping through a gate to clear aggression. It seems like a bad mechanic to me. All too often we've had someone jump into us, we've aggressed him and had him burn back to the gate, jump through, and log off. Because there are no ways in the game to slow people down.
That tactic also, you know, kind of doesn't work. Hate to break it to you bean bag king, but you could have scanned those guys down.
I'm also somewhat skeptical as to your claim that multiple people have done this too you. Whilst I'm certain there is an endless supply of idiots in Eve, that is a pretty stupid tactic for them to use.
-áhttp://i.imgur.com/aWNfM.jpg |
|
|
Xen Solarus
Inner 5phere
40
|
Posted - 2012.03.25 20:52:00 -
[141] - Quote
You can't have it both ways. If someone is actually disconnected for a reason outside of their control, 15minutes is a death-sentence. Whereas deliberately leaving the game before you are agressed has the same effect, it could also be for a good reason, e.g. your house is being robbed, your kitchen is on fire etc. Though these are extreme examples, it should be within anyones right to logoff at anytime, and assuming you haven't been attacked, be safe in the knowledge that your ship isn't just going to sit there and get owned. In this instance, where he's doing it deliberately, you clearly needed more guns. Or you could have waited for him to come back online.
Your anger over this is obviously because in this instance, your easy kill was denied. Demanding the game mechanics be changed so you can get easier kills, whilst making any disconnect for any reason a guaranteed death is stupidity of the highest order. Breaking the game for everyone so gankers can collect more tears. Great plan! |
Noceur-01 Tiers
Dvice Shipyards
2
|
Posted - 2012.03.25 21:03:00 -
[142] - Quote
Xen Solarus wrote:You can't have it both ways. If someone is actually disconnected for a reason outside of their control, 15minutes is a death-sentence. Whereas deliberately leaving the game before you are agressed has the same effect, it could also be for a good reason, e.g. your house is being robbed, your kitchen is on fire etc. Though these are extreme examples, it should be within anyones right to logoff at anytime, and assuming you haven't been attacked, be safe in the knowledge that your ship isn't just going to sit there and get owned. In this instance, where he's doing it deliberately, you clearly needed more guns. Or you could have waited for him to come back online.
Your anger over this is obviously because in this instance, your easy kill was denied. Demanding the game mechanics be changed so you can get easier kills, whilst making any disconnect for any reason a guaranteed death is stupidity of the highest order. Breaking the game for everyone so gankers can collect more tears. Great plan!
Yea lets wait hours and hours for some guy to log on due to a mechanic that are in place in case some user got a fire in their kitchen. Great logic. |
Mr Epeen
It's All About Me
1017
|
Posted - 2012.03.25 21:10:00 -
[143] - Quote
Noceur-01 Tiers wrote:Xen Solarus wrote:You can't have it both ways. If someone is actually disconnected for a reason outside of their control, 15minutes is a death-sentence. Whereas deliberately leaving the game before you are agressed has the same effect, it could also be for a good reason, e.g. your house is being robbed, your kitchen is on fire etc. Though these are extreme examples, it should be within anyones right to logoff at anytime, and assuming you haven't been attacked, be safe in the knowledge that your ship isn't just going to sit there and get owned. In this instance, where he's doing it deliberately, you clearly needed more guns. Or you could have waited for him to come back online.
Your anger over this is obviously because in this instance, your easy kill was denied. Demanding the game mechanics be changed so you can get easier kills, whilst making any disconnect for any reason a guaranteed death is stupidity of the highest order. Breaking the game for everyone so gankers can collect more tears. Great plan! Yea lets wait hours and hours for some guy to log on due to a mechanic that are in place in case some user got a fire in their kitchen. Great logic.
How is that going to affect the hours and hours, day after day, that they sit on that gate anyways. It's not like they have anything else to do.
Mr Epeen 
Me too!-á I ate one sour, too! |
Mystical Might
The Imperial Fedaykin
86
|
Posted - 2012.03.25 21:15:00 -
[144] - Quote
Noceur-01 Tiers wrote:Xen Solarus wrote:You can't have it both ways. If someone is actually disconnected for a reason outside of their control, 15minutes is a death-sentence. Whereas deliberately leaving the game before you are agressed has the same effect, it could also be for a good reason, e.g. your house is being robbed, your kitchen is on fire etc. Though these are extreme examples, it should be within anyones right to logoff at anytime, and assuming you haven't been attacked, be safe in the knowledge that your ship isn't just going to sit there and get owned. In this instance, where he's doing it deliberately, you clearly needed more guns. Or you could have waited for him to come back online.
Your anger over this is obviously because in this instance, your easy kill was denied. Demanding the game mechanics be changed so you can get easier kills, whilst making any disconnect for any reason a guaranteed death is stupidity of the highest order. Breaking the game for everyone so gankers can collect more tears. Great plan! Yea lets wait hours and hours for some guy to log on due to a mechanic that are in place in case some user got a fire in their kitchen. Great logic.
You don't have to wait. Pretty sure the freighter pilot would be all too happy for you to leave him well alone. |
Creat Posudol
Destined for Greatness Inc.
49
|
Posted - 2012.03.25 21:17:00 -
[145] - Quote
Xen Solarus wrote:You can't have it both ways. If someone is actually disconnected for a reason outside of their control, 15minutes is a death-sentence. Whereas deliberately leaving the game before you are agressed has the same effect, it could also be for a good reason, e.g. your house is being robbed, your kitchen is on fire etc. Though these are extreme examples, it should be within anyones right to logoff at anytime, and assuming you haven't been attacked, be safe in the knowledge that your ship isn't just going to sit there and get owned. In this instance, where he's doing it deliberately, you clearly needed more guns. Or you could have waited for him to come back online.
Your anger over this is obviously because in this instance, your easy kill was denied. Demanding the game mechanics be changed so you can get easier kills, whilst making any disconnect for any reason a guaranteed death is stupidity of the highest order. Breaking the game for everyone so gankers can collect more tears. Great plan!
First of all, if you are indeed robbed or the house is on fire, losing a ship in a game probably ranks pretty low on the list of priorities. And most of all this should not be a factor in the design of the game, as I'm sure it's a phenomenally tiny chance to be robbed and/or on fire the same instant you jump into lowsec (as an example). It should be anyones right to log off at any time, but it should of course come with consequences when you do so in a dangerous situation! Waiting for him to come back can take days (but just hours is a rather long wait), or he can come back and just check with an alt if you're gone (or even just online) once every 5 hours.
And yes, you can (at least with some degree of certainty) differentiate between someone leaving intentionally and someone who just lost their connection. Just send a "client closed" the instant you actively close the client. If you are worried someone might filter this specific packet type with their firewall just append it to some of the status packets that I'm sure are sent by the client for various reasons. You can still yank the cable from your computer, but most people (not on a laptop) have to crawl under their desks for this (or specifically place their hub/modem/... on the desk to have fast enough access to it. You can even still detect this to some degree, if the server tries to ping the cilent's IP the second he drops, if it still responds the ethernet cable was pulled. Now he has to pull the external cable (and the router often is further away).
Just a few examples. But I do agree that the rage of the OP comes from being denied their kill, but that doesn't mean the claim has no validity. It was their fair kill to make, the freighter pilot was the one being careless, which should have resulted in the loss of the ship (from a logic point of view). Any mechanic that encourages you to close the client if you think you're in trouble should be changed ASAP! |
RougeOperator
Autocannons Anonymous
Late Night Alliance
170
|
Posted - 2012.03.25 21:18:00 -
[146] - Quote
Creat Posudol wrote:Simi Kusoni wrote:Skydell wrote:I doubt the guy expected his Provi to live, that's the thing. He jumped through, saw the gate camp and just closed the client. I would have done the same. I don't think it was a tactical attempt to save his ship. He just didn't want to watch it pop knowing he wasn't going to be able to do anything about it. Nah, it's a well known tactic. I've used it myself, and had it used on me too. Closing the client isn't a rage quit, it's your last hope of getting out. That in itself is a problem. Closing the client should NEVER be a better option than to stay in the game. It shouldn't provide safety, it should be worse (if possible) to just close the client. Especially in a situation where you know you will lose your ship (and content) closing the client shouldn't provide a glimmer of hope for you to keep it, it just doesn't make any sense...
The truth.
|
Vaal Erit
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
78
|
Posted - 2012.03.25 21:28:00 -
[147] - Quote
Let's try this another way. I am playing a 1v1 match in Starcraft 2. My opponent is down to his last SCV and I am just about to kill it, when my opponent disconnects.
EVE would record this as no win for me , no loss for my opponent and basically as if nothing has ever happened
Every other "real" competitive game on the planet records this as a win for me and a loss for my opponent |
Mr Epeen
It's All About Me
1017
|
Posted - 2012.03.25 21:55:00 -
[148] - Quote
Vaal Erit wrote:Let's try this another way. I am playing a 1v1 match in Starcraft 2. My opponent is down to his last SCV and I am just about to kill it, when my opponent disconnects.
EVE would record this as no win for me , no loss for my opponent and basically as if nothing has ever happened
Every other "real" competitive game on the planet records this as a win for me and a loss for my opponent
One) This isn't a thread about killmails.
Two) In this game not killing a ship and calling it a win is just dumb. You win when you deny his assets. In this case a hull and modules, cargo, etc.
Mr Epeen
Me too!-á I ate one sour, too! |
Pesadel0
the muppets
RED.OverLord
32
|
Posted - 2012.03.25 21:58:00 -
[149] - Quote
Happened to me 3 times this in my eve life with freights , petitioned the GM said working has intended. |
RougeOperator
Autocannons Anonymous
Late Night Alliance
171
|
Posted - 2012.03.25 22:13:00 -
[150] - Quote
Pesadel0 wrote:Happened to me 3 times this in my eve life with freights , petitioned the GM said working has intended.
Should have escalated it and had someone in team fraps it. As well as logs etc.
And brought it to the forums for discussion.
Im not posting what i cant post in this thread but my petition is loaded with info etc.
The GMs were wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 11 .. 11 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |