| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 11 12 13 .. 13 :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Kular
   |
Posted - 2004.07.13 21:43:00 -
[181]
Just a little note, Ships staying in space + Covert Opts Frigs = Dead ships, even in Empire space....
Not to mention the lagg.... from all that clutter
Home of Ubiqua Seraph
Eve's only all Sarum loyal corporation. |
Kular
|
Posted - 2004.07.13 21:43:00 -
[182]
Just a little note, Ships staying in space + Covert Opts Frigs = Dead ships, even in Empire space....
Not to mention the lagg.... from all that clutter
Home of Ubiqua Seraph
Eve's only all Sarum loyal corporation. |
XpoHoc
|
Posted - 2004.07.14 00:12:00 -
[183]
Edited by: XpoHoc on 14/07/2004 00:31:19
Well, not sure if I said it in this thread or in another one...
The problem is that you can't scout offline people, means even if you watch map and have scouts that wouldn't help you to avoid a log off trap...
...so isn't it the easiest solution just to add a ships in space option for offline ships to the map? I know it works (corp members) so it would not even need new coding.
Simply and effective, that's how solutions should be, everything complicated is just unnecessary.
-> 2 new map options: offline players docked, offline ships in space.
 |
XpoHoc
|
Posted - 2004.07.14 00:12:00 -
[184]
Edited by: XpoHoc on 14/07/2004 00:31:19
Well, not sure if I said it in this thread or in another one...
The problem is that you can't scout offline people, means even if you watch map and have scouts that wouldn't help you to avoid a log off trap...
...so isn't it the easiest solution just to add a ships in space option for offline ships to the map? I know it works (corp members) so it would not even need new coding.
Simply and effective, that's how solutions should be, everything complicated is just unnecessary.
-> 2 new map options: offline players docked, offline ships in space.
|
JoCool
|
Posted - 2004.07.14 00:20:00 -
[185]
 Originally by: Oveur
Originally by: Joshua Calvert
How about Dev's just declare it an exploit and be done with it?
It's a crap tactic used by crap gamers.
Where would you draw the line? Is it enough that one guy is logged off, then logs in and helps his friend? How about 3? Would it have to be 3 frigates or 3 battleships? Does it maybe need to be 10? Or should it be relative to the force attacked?
Strengthening the log-off and log-on is a much better approach, and some Ideas here like less cap combined with a small delay would help this issue far more than me saying "SPLOIT".
Like I also said, using any means to circumvent the current rules (with other exploits or specific workarounds) is of course an exploit.
There is no simple fix to this, ghosting is the best "simple" suggestion here to help someone to identify IF there is a possibility of getting ganked, but there are so many people that log of in space that places like U-Q or other hotspots would look like a gankfest waiting to happen 24/7.
Permaships in itself needs tons of supporting changes to work, like mentioned by Bob, this increases the vulnerability of ships by large amounts compared to today.
Oveur, there is only right and wrong! Wether it's a single frigate logging in to ambush or a fleet of 10 battleships is irrelevant..
Two things:
Declare it an exploit.
Then make it so you are forced to warp back with zero cap (you cannot cancel the warp) - but make the ship invulnerable to jamming or any damage until the pilot manually activates a module. Cross this with a one minute timer for not being able to use capacitor injectors.
This way the pilot could still easily warp-out if he's in an NPC spawn or a likewise bad unintended situation. He can warp to a safe spot, wait for his capacitor to recharge / the one minute timer of the cap injector and proceed hunting NPCs.
|
JoCool
|
Posted - 2004.07.14 00:20:00 -
[186]
Originally by: Oveur
Originally by: Joshua Calvert
How about Dev's just declare it an exploit and be done with it?
It's a crap tactic used by crap gamers.
Where would you draw the line? Is it enough that one guy is logged off, then logs in and helps his friend? How about 3? Would it have to be 3 frigates or 3 battleships? Does it maybe need to be 10? Or should it be relative to the force attacked?
Strengthening the log-off and log-on is a much better approach, and some Ideas here like less cap combined with a small delay would help this issue far more than me saying "SPLOIT".
Like I also said, using any means to circumvent the current rules (with other exploits or specific workarounds) is of course an exploit.
There is no simple fix to this, ghosting is the best "simple" suggestion here to help someone to identify IF there is a possibility of getting ganked, but there are so many people that log of in space that places like U-Q or other hotspots would look like a gankfest waiting to happen 24/7.
Permaships in itself needs tons of supporting changes to work, like mentioned by Bob, this increases the vulnerability of ships by large amounts compared to today.
Oveur, there is only right and wrong! Wether it's a single frigate logging in to ambush or a fleet of 10 battleships is irrelevant..
Two things:
Declare it an exploit.
Then make it so you are forced to warp back with zero cap (you cannot cancel the warp) - but make the ship invulnerable to jamming or any damage until the pilot manually activates a module. Cross this with a one minute timer for not being able to use capacitor injectors.
This way the pilot could still easily warp-out if he's in an NPC spawn or a likewise bad unintended situation. He can warp to a safe spot, wait for his capacitor to recharge / the one minute timer of the cap injector and proceed hunting NPCs.
|
Dan Forever
|
Posted - 2004.07.14 00:49:00 -
[187]
I like the idea of having no cap on start up, but Josh's no boosters allowed idea seems a bit extreme, considering most charge times. I think perhaps when logging on, in space, starting with low/no cap and about a minute of time where your targeting sensors re-adjust themselves would be good.
Remember people have to sacrifice other items for cap boosters and whatnot.
I also think being able to remove yourself from local or map stats would be worth looking into.
Also a grace period of about 5 minutes might be a good idea for those who CTD etc as Mr. Mad suggested before :D
|
Dan Forever
|
Posted - 2004.07.14 00:49:00 -
[188]
I like the idea of having no cap on start up, but Josh's no boosters allowed idea seems a bit extreme, considering most charge times. I think perhaps when logging on, in space, starting with low/no cap and about a minute of time where your targeting sensors re-adjust themselves would be good.
Remember people have to sacrifice other items for cap boosters and whatnot.
I also think being able to remove yourself from local or map stats would be worth looking into.
Also a grace period of about 5 minutes might be a good idea for those who CTD etc as Mr. Mad suggested before :D
|
SlightlyMad
|
Posted - 2004.07.14 02:37:00 -
[189]
No cap?
It wont solve anything, anything at all
Not being able to target is the only solution.
Its fairly easy to implement too
Together with a grace period. And still being able to target NPC would solve it completely.
I have a suspicion it was a matter of conveniance they removed it from exploit once the warpout was implemented. I'm guessing they got tons of false claims of logintraps. From people who failed to check the map or the other side of the gate.
The main argument is not that this is just a dirty tactic. The main argument is that this cancels out ANY strategy/scouting/planning. It simply makes the game to a cat'n'mouse logout/login competition. 
*
-"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 |
SlightlyMad
|
Posted - 2004.07.14 02:37:00 -
[190]
No cap?
It wont solve anything, anything at all
Not being able to target is the only solution.
Its fairly easy to implement too
Together with a grace period. And still being able to target NPC would solve it completely.
I have a suspicion it was a matter of conveniance they removed it from exploit once the warpout was implemented. I'm guessing they got tons of false claims of logintraps. From people who failed to check the map or the other side of the gate.
The main argument is not that this is just a dirty tactic. The main argument is that this cancels out ANY strategy/scouting/planning. It simply makes the game to a cat'n'mouse logout/login competition.
*
-"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 |
Guilbert
|
Posted - 2004.07.14 02:47:00 -
[191]
probably discussed a lot but here i go..
how bout deleting the local chat and the show players in space option?
then ppl wont use any logout/logon tactics since ppl wont see them anyway.
on the other hand this will make scouts handy and ofcourse scanners 
*Guilbert raises shields to counter flaming*
Mess with the best..
..and die like the rest |
Guilbert
|
Posted - 2004.07.14 02:47:00 -
[192]
probably discussed a lot but here i go..
how bout deleting the local chat and the show players in space option?
then ppl wont use any logout/logon tactics since ppl wont see them anyway.
on the other hand this will make scouts handy and ofcourse scanners
*Guilbert raises shields to counter flaming*
Mess with the best..
..and die like the rest |
Sinist
|
Posted - 2004.07.14 03:21:00 -
[193]
Edited by: Sinist on 14/07/2004 03:25:36
Im always for making scanner useful and actually something that you use. Signed for that idea or in some variant in reason.
|
Sinist
|
Posted - 2004.07.14 03:21:00 -
[194]
Edited by: Sinist on 14/07/2004 03:25:36
Im always for making scanner useful and actually something that you use. Signed for that idea or in some variant in reason.
|
Lauren Clarke
|
Posted - 2004.07.14 03:45:00 -
[195]
Well - what do you know. Perhaps people will start using quick, expandable tac units instead of 50 on 50 battles ...
|
Lauren Clarke
|
Posted - 2004.07.14 03:45:00 -
[196]
Well - what do you know. Perhaps people will start using quick, expandable tac units instead of 50 on 50 battles ...
|
ivar R'dhak
|
Posted - 2004.07.14 04:01:00 -
[197]
Edited by: ivar R'dhak on 14/07/2004 04:20:23
Edited by: ivar R'dhak on 14/07/2004 04:09:49
Hello, this is my first post to the forum. So please bear with me. 
I¦m playing EVE for over two months now and like it very much but the thing that annoys me the most is the almost immediate disappearance of ships after logout.
It doesn¦t make much sense roleplay-story wise and is abused frequently as everybody already stated. As solution to this problem I suggest using a gamemechanic that¦s already letting ships disappear namely the Jumpgate.
The current sequence of events after a logout or ctd should be left IMHO. (It ain¦t broke so plz don¦t fix it) 
But instead of letting the ship simply vanish let it float where it is for about 15-30 mins or so, enough time to relog after a ctd or some other reason.
After that time let the pod initiate some kind of pilot-connection loss feature which warps the ship automatically to the nearest gate and initiates an autojump to ... nowhere.
Leaving the ship in hyperspace between the two gates and thus effectively vanishing it. The gatecloaking feature could be used to protect the incomming ship at least from the NPC-rats.
When the user now relogs after a longer absence the gate spits the ship out again and leaves it cloaked for a longer period of time but absolutely dead for the duration of the cloak (gatecloak doesn¦t decloak). An automatic power up and warp back feature right before the cloak lifts could leave the ship (pod) where it left for the gate.
I know it sound much too complicated and I don¦t know if all these automatic sequences can be introduced at all, but at least it would make the logon trap dangerous for those exploiting it (smartbombs in the vicinity of the spitout-gate) and give enough time to escape the trap. The auto-jump sequence is dangerous enough to let people rather log off in station. Those sequences could be explained nicely with a little jove tech mysteriously interacting story and it would remove the ships-going-poof-for-no-apparent-reason after logout plothole.
Well that¦s my 2 cents.
_
Mal-`Appears we got here just in a nick of time. What does that make us?¦
Zoe-¦Big damn heroes sir.¦
Mal-¦Aint we just.¦ |
ivar R'dhak
|
Posted - 2004.07.14 04:01:00 -
[198]
Edited by: ivar R'dhak on 14/07/2004 04:20:23
Edited by: ivar R'dhak on 14/07/2004 04:09:49
Hello, this is my first post to the forum. So please bear with me.
I¦m playing EVE for over two months now and like it very much but the thing that annoys me the most is the almost immediate disappearance of ships after logout.
It doesn¦t make much sense roleplay-story wise and is abused frequently as everybody already stated. As solution to this problem I suggest using a gamemechanic that¦s already letting ships disappear namely the Jumpgate.
The current sequence of events after a logout or ctd should be left IMHO. (It ain¦t broke so plz don¦t fix it)
But instead of letting the ship simply vanish let it float where it is for about 15-30 mins or so, enough time to relog after a ctd or some other reason.
After that time let the pod initiate some kind of pilot-connection loss feature which warps the ship automatically to the nearest gate and initiates an autojump to ... nowhere.
Leaving the ship in hyperspace between the two gates and thus effectively vanishing it. The gatecloaking feature could be used to protect the incomming ship at least from the NPC-rats.
When the user now relogs after a longer absence the gate spits the ship out again and leaves it cloaked for a longer period of time but absolutely dead for the duration of the cloak (gatecloak doesn¦t decloak). An automatic power up and warp back feature right before the cloak lifts could leave the ship (pod) where it left for the gate.
I know it sound much too complicated and I don¦t know if all these automatic sequences can be introduced at all, but at least it would make the logon trap dangerous for those exploiting it (smartbombs in the vicinity of the spitout-gate) and give enough time to escape the trap. The auto-jump sequence is dangerous enough to let people rather log off in station. Those sequences could be explained nicely with a little jove tech mysteriously interacting story and it would remove the ships-going-poof-for-no-apparent-reason after logout plothole.
Well that¦s my 2 cents.
_
Mal-`Appears we got here just in a nick of time. What does that make us?¦
Zoe-¦Big damn heroes sir.¦
Mal-¦Aint we just.¦ |
Treborc
|
Posted - 2004.07.14 04:03:00 -
[199]
I personaly prefer the idea of ships in space...but implemented with a simple AI that can be set by the player.
The AI handles a short list of situations when the user/player/pilot is not around and is turned on by default when ever a player is not on-line, otherwise is set by the player when he wants to go AFK etc.
Some of the AI functions would cover things like logout's while not docked......such as....1/ stay put and go into defensive mode... 2/ Autopilot warp to a designated station after a time period....3/ Autopilot warp to a specified location bookmarked for that player after a certain period .... 4/ On podding autopilot to designated station....etc
This would stop this issue being considered as an exploit and any issues of server load would also be covered.......once a ship is docked...its docked no more action therefore no more load on the servers.
Then this game would be a truely interactive, permenant, online game.
And anybody who cries that this penalises a certain class of players....go away and think about this idea and what this game is really about......its realisem is whats going for it...the logging in/out is the one part that is not realistic enough.
|
Treborc
|
Posted - 2004.07.14 04:03:00 -
[200]
I personaly prefer the idea of ships in space...but implemented with a simple AI that can be set by the player.
The AI handles a short list of situations when the user/player/pilot is not around and is turned on by default when ever a player is not on-line, otherwise is set by the player when he wants to go AFK etc.
Some of the AI functions would cover things like logout's while not docked......such as....1/ stay put and go into defensive mode... 2/ Autopilot warp to a designated station after a time period....3/ Autopilot warp to a specified location bookmarked for that player after a certain period .... 4/ On podding autopilot to designated station....etc
This would stop this issue being considered as an exploit and any issues of server load would also be covered.......once a ship is docked...its docked no more action therefore no more load on the servers.
Then this game would be a truely interactive, permenant, online game.
And anybody who cries that this penalises a certain class of players....go away and think about this idea and what this game is really about......its realisem is whats going for it...the logging in/out is the one part that is not realistic enough.
|
RamJet
|
Posted - 2004.07.14 05:00:00 -
[201]
Why not just add a setting to the map that shows the number of ppl who logged out of a system.
|
RamJet
|
Posted - 2004.07.14 05:00:00 -
[202]
Why not just add a setting to the map that shows the number of ppl who logged out of a system.
|
Dri Kulsane
|
Posted - 2004.07.14 05:46:00 -
[203]
Originally by: Arud
how about simply having a delay before they can do anything when people log into while in space. So a player a logs off, ship flies off automaticly 1 au away like it is now. Later he logs back on, for 1-2 minutes he cant move, give the excuse like the crew is getting back to work from launch or something. He does on the other hand apear on local and can start to chat in local and with his corp mates just he can not move his ship. When the delay ends he automaticly warps back to his logoff point.
This gives the others in the system some time to either get away ore just tough it out when all the login guys warp back in.
I was thinking the same thing
|
Dri Kulsane
|
Posted - 2004.07.14 05:46:00 -
[204]
Originally by: Arud
how about simply having a delay before they can do anything when people log into while in space. So a player a logs off, ship flies off automaticly 1 au away like it is now. Later he logs back on, for 1-2 minutes he cant move, give the excuse like the crew is getting back to work from launch or something. He does on the other hand apear on local and can start to chat in local and with his corp mates just he can not move his ship. When the delay ends he automaticly warps back to his logoff point.
This gives the others in the system some time to either get away ore just tough it out when all the login guys warp back in.
I was thinking the same thing
|
Nemis Godslayer
|
Posted - 2004.07.14 05:48:00 -
[205]
Why waste tons of coding for something you cant get rid of...people will log off and CTDs do happen. The current system of warping away is fine. Just make the warp back in random. I.e. CTD, log back in, warps you to some random location...
People log out to set trap can not log in and be sent to the designated spot....theyd warp to some random location and then have to warp to a BM of the ambush...
No matter what you do people will be able to set ambushes with Book Marks
Tons of other stuff to fix/add without resorting to stupid crap like this...work on Shiva instead.
Nem 
|
Nemis Godslayer
|
Posted - 2004.07.14 05:48:00 -
[206]
Why waste tons of coding for something you cant get rid of...people will log off and CTDs do happen. The current system of warping away is fine. Just make the warp back in random. I.e. CTD, log back in, warps you to some random location...
People log out to set trap can not log in and be sent to the designated spot....theyd warp to some random location and then have to warp to a BM of the ambush...
No matter what you do people will be able to set ambushes with Book Marks
Tons of other stuff to fix/add without resorting to stupid crap like this...work on Shiva instead.
Nem
|
John Itty
|
Posted - 2004.07.14 07:30:00 -
[207]
Ghost ships is a Rubbish idea.
1st thing id do if i saw a a 'Ghost fleet' in a system? go get some Mobile Warpdisrupters
0 cap? rubbish idea.
By the time it takes a Raven to lock you, he'd have more than enough cap to pound you with torps.
(not a problem 1on1, he wouldn't be able to run shields etc, but vs. fleets you dont have enough time to kill a bs, unless your a hardcore mofo)
half of the posts in here give no consideration to the Poor (paying customers) that have to deal with the constant ctd/grey screens.
Just declare it an expliot.
oh, a whats up whith all the guys asking for the removal of local chat? i can understand the Map filter that shows pilots in space is a bit dodge, but whats stopping your ship ping'ing a solar system and being able to pick up all the player/ships signatures?
|
John Itty
|
Posted - 2004.07.14 07:30:00 -
[208]
Ghost ships is a Rubbish idea.
1st thing id do if i saw a a 'Ghost fleet' in a system? go get some Mobile Warpdisrupters
0 cap? rubbish idea.
By the time it takes a Raven to lock you, he'd have more than enough cap to pound you with torps.
(not a problem 1on1, he wouldn't be able to run shields etc, but vs. fleets you dont have enough time to kill a bs, unless your a hardcore mofo)
half of the posts in here give no consideration to the Poor (paying customers) that have to deal with the constant ctd/grey screens.
Just declare it an expliot.
oh, a whats up whith all the guys asking for the removal of local chat? i can understand the Map filter that shows pilots in space is a bit dodge, but whats stopping your ship ping'ing a solar system and being able to pick up all the player/ships signatures?
|
Vel Kyri
|
Posted - 2004.07.14 08:47:00 -
[209]
Originally by: John Itty
Ghost ships is a Rubbish idea.
oh, a whats up whith all the guys asking for the removal of local chat? i can understand the Map filter that shows pilots in space is a bit dodge, but whats stopping your ship ping'ing a solar system and being able to pick up all the player/ships signatures?
what to stop you from scanning for those ships???
too lazy?
remove local altogether....
-----
|
Vel Kyri
|
Posted - 2004.07.14 08:47:00 -
[210]
Originally by: John Itty
Ghost ships is a Rubbish idea.
oh, a whats up whith all the guys asking for the removal of local chat? i can understand the Map filter that shows pilots in space is a bit dodge, but whats stopping your ship ping'ing a solar system and being able to pick up all the player/ships signatures?
what to stop you from scanning for those ships???
too lazy?
remove local altogether....
-----
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 11 12 13 .. 13 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |