EVE Search - 3 years, CCP, 3 years

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

3 years, CCP, 3 years

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
TheEndofTheWorld Republic Military School	Posted - 2008.12.16 19:27:00 - [31] Edited by: TheEndofTheWorld on 16/12/2008 19:33:19 Originally by: emf Edited by: emf on 16/12/2008 19:04:52 Yes, but it is much more likely that if you get aggro in the short period of time your ship takes to emergency warp off, it is intentional. So it should follow the same set of rules as logging off with aggro or somewhere in between (120 seconds). The game does not have to know your intent, if not why not just allow you to log off mid combat and disappear? 1. Log off with aggro => Assumed to be intentional, 15 minute timer. 2. Log off but get aggroed before ship completes warpout => 60 seconds?! Should this not be treated as harshly as 1? Or at least tougher than 3? 3. Log off and don't get aggroed => Assumed to be unintentional, ship disappears in 60 seconds. There is no paradox... Except logging off with aggro is almost always unintentional, everyone with any sort of idea about pvp at all, knows that logging off with aggro is death. It has became just an annoyance, everyone will just wait out their 15 min and then log off. The game is deciding that logging off is intentional when it is most likely that is was NOT intentional. Logging off at gates, is such an strong tactic that you are almost always better off when logging off while cloaked. It is better to log off... and logging off at gates is almost always intentional, if it wasn't most who "crashed" would log back in within the next 1-2-3 min, yet they don't. The game is deciding that logging off is unintentional when it is most likely that is WAS intentional.
Danton Marcellus Nebula Rasa Holdings	Posted - 2008.12.16 19:32:00 - [32] Originally by: TheEndofTheWorld Originally by: emf Edited by: emf on 16/12/2008 19:04:52 Yes, but it is much more likely that if you get aggro in the short period of time your ship takes to emergency warp off, it is intentional. So it should follow the same set of rules as logging off with aggro or somewhere in between (120 seconds). The game does not have to know your intent, if not why not just allow you to log off mid combat and disappear? 1. Log off with aggro => Assumed to be intentional, 15 minute timer. 2. Log off but get aggroed before ship completes warpout => 60 seconds?! Should this not be treated as harshly as 1? Or at least tougher than 3? 3. Log off and don't get aggroed => Assumed to be unintentional, ship disappears in 60 seconds. There is no paradox... Except logging off with aggro is almost always unintentional, everyone with any sort of idea about pvp at all, knows that logging off with aggro is death. It has became just an annoyance, everyone will just wait out their 15 min and then log off. The game is deciding that logging off is intentional when it is most likely that is was NOT intentional. Logging off at gates, is such an strong tactic that you are almost always better off when logging off while cloaked. It is better to log off... and logging off at gates is almost always intentional, if it wasn't most who "crashed" would log back in within the next 1-2-3 min, yet they don't. The game is deciding that logging off is unintentional when it is most likely that is WAS intentional. Yet, whe Did you just crash from the forums or did you log off midpost? Should/would/could have, HAVE you chav! Also Known As
TheEndofTheWorld Republic Military School	Posted - 2008.12.16 19:32:00 - [33] Originally by: War Fairy Originally by: emf 2. Log off but get aggroed before ship completes warpout => 60 seconds?! Should this not be treated as harshly as 1? Or at least tougher than 3? This assumes that all crashes after jump are a logoffski. It also punishes less agile ships. The current system at least treats everyone fairly. Short of CCP standing a person next to you to call crash or logoffski this problem is unsolveable. I have NEVER heard of a "logoffskier/crasher" log back in after 1-2-3-4-5 minutes or so. Everyone has complete blackouts and somehow all the blackouts end when their friends/scout alts arrive? Fine, make it so, for example, aggro after log off = you disappear for 3 minutes, after that you respawn at the gate and stay there for 15 minutes. That is fair, isn't it.
TheEndofTheWorld Republic Military School	Posted - 2008.12.16 19:33:00 - [34] Quote: Did you just crash from the forums or did you log off midpost? I logged off in protest 1!1!!!!!
Dkorg	Posted - 2008.12.16 19:35:00 - [35] Originally by: TheEndofTheWorld Originally by: War Fairy Originally by: emf 2. Log off but get aggroed before ship completes warpout => 60 seconds?! Should this not be treated as harshly as 1? Or at least tougher than 3? This assumes that all crashes after jump are a logoffski. It also punishes less agile ships. The current system at least treats everyone fairly. Short of CCP standing a person next to you to call crash or logoffski this problem is unsolveable. I have NEVER heard of a "logoffskier/crasher" log back in after 1-2-3-4-5 minutes or so. Everyone has complete blackouts and somehow all the blackouts end when their friends/scout alts arrive? Fine, make it so, for example, aggro after log off = you disappear for 3 minutes, after that you respawn at the gate and stay there for 15 minutes. That is fair, isn't it. Nope that's still just you whining that you missed a kill.
MotherMoon Huang Yinglong	Posted - 2008.12.16 19:35:00 - [36] Originally by: TheEndofTheWorld Edited by: TheEndofTheWorld on 16/12/2008 18:03:16 Originally by: Arvald because theres no way to tell if someone dropped connection or just logged off, also they cant stop peopel from loging off So, why don't I disappear when I crash when in pvp? how come I can still die if there is 10+ opponents Why is there a pvp timer at all? If you log off when in combat you won't leave the batlefield mate. You only leave the PvP zone when you crash if you weren't in combat. the game doesn't know the damn difference between logging off and crashing, it thinks it's the same thing, as it should.
Tippia Caldari Raddick Explorations BlackWater.	Posted - 2008.12.16 19:39:00 - [37] Originally by: TheEndofTheWorld […] The game is deciding that logging off is intentional when it is most likely that is was NOT intentional. […] The game is deciding that logging off is unintentional when it is most likely that is WAS intentional. …all of which is irrelevant since there is no way for the game to tell the difference or to determine intent. No sig for me, thankyouverymuch.
Myra2007 Perkone	Posted - 2008.12.16 19:49:00 - [38] Yes, its silly. But let's face it ccp isn't going to change it ever. There are too many freighter alts afraid of losing their get out of jail card. Some of them you can see ITT. I love it how everybody talks about punishing those that d/c. When in reality it's mostly freighter pilots who profit from this. A bc or smaller will usually be killed easily before it vanishes. Mostly some bs and freighters have the hp to even profit from this mechanic. So as it stands most people who don't fly big hp-monster already DO get "punished". Why would it be different if you're in a freighter or bs? The only correct answer is to bring more firepower. Which then will provoke another endless stream of whining about how mean gatecamp-blobbers destroy all which is great in eve. -- Originally by: kublai on Ankhesentapemkah That said, the "i'm a girl who plays your computer game and i'm not that ugly" has always been a certain winner in the mmo world
TheEndofTheWorld Republic Military School	Posted - 2008.12.16 20:07:00 - [39] Edited by: TheEndofTheWorld on 16/12/2008 20:09:23 Edited by: TheEndofTheWorld on 16/12/2008 20:07:32 Originally by: Tippia Originally by: TheEndofTheWorld [à] The game is deciding that logging off is intentional when it is most likely that is was NOT intentional. [à] The game is deciding that logging off is unintentional when it is most likely that is WAS intentional. àall of which is irrelevant since there is no way for the game to tell the difference or to determine intent. Correct, yet, I assume it would only be logical to make game mechanics so, that they would affect the majority (the more likely situation) rather than the minority (the less likely situation). Originally by: MotherMoon Read the thread. Originally by: Dkorg Nope that's still just you whining that you missed a kill. Let me guess, everything CCP has ever done is perfect and you like everything as it is, you don't want eve to change etc etc. Good for you, because CCP isn't doing much. Go on and enjoy.
Tippia Caldari Raddick Explorations BlackWater.	Posted - 2008.12.16 20:17:00 - [40] Originally by: TheEndofTheWorld Correct, yet, I assume it would only be logical to make game mechanics so, that they would affect the majority (the more likely situation) rather than the minority (the less likely situation). No, it would be logical not to punish people for connection issues beyond their control. Thus the current system. No sig for me, thankyouverymuch.
MotherMoon Huang Yinglong	Posted - 2008.12.16 20:29:00 - [41] Originally by: TheEndofTheWorld Read the thread. up yours
TheEndofTheWorld Republic Military School	Posted - 2008.12.16 20:47:00 - [42] Edited by: TheEndofTheWorld on 16/12/2008 20:49:34 Originally by: Tippia Originally by: TheEndofTheWorld Correct, yet, I assume it would only be logical to make game mechanics so, that they would affect the majority (the more likely situation) rather than the minority (the less likely situation). No, it would be logical not to punish people for connection issues beyond their control. Thus the current system. Yet, they are punishing people for connection issues beyond their control... The only ones getting benefits are the: BS hp and + players The ones getting treated unfairly: smaller ships, pvpers, small gangs, etc etc
Tippia Caldari Raddick Explorations BlackWater.	Posted - 2008.12.16 20:56:00 - [43] Originally by: TheEndofTheWorld Yet, they are punishing people for connection issues beyond their control... Nope. They are "punishing" people who get into combat (by relieving them off ships that they would have lost anyway). Don't want to lose your ship? Don't fight. Very very simple. No sig for me, thankyouverymuch.
Soi Mala	Posted - 2008.12.16 21:10:00 - [44] Logically, the current system is pretty close to fine... but we all know it can be abused quite easily... you make it to a gate 3 seconds before someone else and you can jump, ctrl + q, and be assured safety. Obviously, alot of people have network issues, i myself get disconnected very often... but lets face it, having this mechanic in place, giving people a chance to escape ship losses -just on the offchance- the game/network isn't behaving as planned seems a bit backwards. Problem is, i find it really hard to think of an analogy to convey my opinion on this. I guess it could be likened to dragging a big parachute behind a ferrari -just on the offchance- that the brakes fail. The problem is a little more complex than that, but you see my point - game mechanics shouldn't really be taking unexpected external factors into account. Just a simple change could really improve the situation, whilst leaving the genuine disconnectees fairly uneffected. Make it so that being on grid with anyone who isn't blue/green/purple to you gives you the timer of 15mins should you drop (warping off grid and logging at a safe would be fine). This would prevent logoffskis at gatecamps etc. Jumped into a gatecamp and got legitimately DC'd? Well, thats a pretty slim chance you'd get DC'd in THOSE 10secs or so, on THAT gate... but hey, you'l still warp away safely, you'l just be open to probing. This would stop probably more than half the logoffskis. TL;DR version - If you're on grid with people who are hostile, you should accept that you've put your ship at risk. If you can't accept that risk, you shouldn't have put yourself there.
Dkorg	Posted - 2008.12.16 21:15:00 - [45] Originally by: TheEndofTheWorld Edited by: TheEndofTheWorld on 16/12/2008 20:09:23 Edited by: TheEndofTheWorld on 16/12/2008 20:07:32 Originally by: Tippia Originally by: TheEndofTheWorld [] The game is deciding that logging off is intentional when it is most likely that is was NOT intentional.* [] The game is deciding that logging off is unintentional when it is most likely that is WAS intentional.* all of which is irrelevant since there is no way for the game to tell the difference or to determine intent. Correct, yet, I assume it would only be logical to make game mechanics so, that they would affect the majority (the more likely situation) rather than the minority (the less likely situation). Originally by:* MotherMoon Read the thread. Originally by: Dkorg Nope that's still just you whining that you missed a kill. Let me guess, everything CCP has ever done is perfect and you like everything as it is, you don't want eve to change etc etc. Good for you, because CCP isn't doing much. Go on and enjoy. Nope. It's impossible to solve the disconnect problem. The rules apply equaly and fairly to everyone. Deal.
Trebor Notlimah Lone Star EVE Group Veni Vidi Vici	Posted - 2008.12.16 21:23:00 - [46] So it isn't a feature?
War Fairy	Posted - 2008.12.16 21:33:00 - [47] So your arguement is that most combat logoffs are crashes? Ok then we should change the timer when aggroed to 60 seconds to avoid punishing those who D/C? Right?
Tippia Caldari Raddick Explorations BlackWater.	Posted - 2008.12.16 21:34:00 - [48] Originally by: Trebor Notlimah So it isn't a feature? No. More like an actual function. No sig for me, thankyouverymuch.
VoiceInTheDesert Gallente Diplomatic Disruption	Posted - 2008.12.16 21:37:00 - [49] To me, this is pretty easy to fix. Just make a mandatory "confirm" window on shut down of the program. If this button is confirmed, then the timer for staying in space is...let's say 20 seconds (now you have at least 5 seconds to lock and get the aggression timer going). If the confirmation is not done, then the standard auto-warp off to safety. People who close the game and use loggoffski as a game mechanic lose their ships. Those who lose connection are still safe. It won't stop people from just ending the program with task manager or something, but those people are *****es who will probably figure a way around any system that can be fairly implemented anyway.
Tippia Caldari Raddick Explorations BlackWater.	Posted - 2008.12.16 21:41:00 - [50] Originally by: VoiceInTheDesert People who close the game and use loggoffski as a game mechanic lose their ships. Those who lose connection are still safe. It won't stop people from just ending the program with task manager or something, but those people are *****es who will probably figure a way around any system that can be fairly implemented anyway. Exactly, so the whole measure is completely pointless since it doesn't actualy solve any of the perceived issues. No sig for me, thankyouverymuch.
Cpt Lollercakes Warriors of COAD	Posted - 2008.12.16 21:47:00 - [51] Originally by: Tippia so the whole measure is completely pointless since it doesn't actualy solve any of the perceived issues. Like the thread then. I'm going back to the latest ferro-sploit-gibber thread, at least its fresher than this corpse.
War Fairy	Posted - 2008.12.16 21:49:00 - [52] Edited by: War Fairy on 16/12/2008 21:54:13 Originally by: VoiceInTheDesert To me, this is pretty easy to fix. Just make a mandatory "confirm" window on shut down of the program. If this button is confirmed, then the timer for staying in space is...let's say 20 seconds (now you have at least 5 seconds to lock and get the aggression timer going). If the confirmation is not done, then the standard auto-warp off to safety. People who close the game and use loggoffski as a game mechanic lose their ships. Those who lose connection are still safe. It won't stop people from just ending the program with task manager or something, but those people are *****es who will probably figure a way around any system that can be fairly implemented anyway. Your "pretty easy to fix" solution is broken. Please read your own damn post to see why it's broken.
FOl2TY8 Scorpion's Sting	Posted - 2008.12.16 21:49:00 - [53] Nerf Missles!!!! ---------- The six paths and the four lives....
VoiceInTheDesert Gallente Diplomatic Disruption	Posted - 2008.12.16 22:09:00 - [54] Edited by: VoiceInTheDesert on 16/12/2008 22:09:37 Originally by: War Fairy Edited by: War Fairy on 16/12/2008 21:54:13 Originally by: VoiceInTheDesert To me, this is pretty easy to fix. Just make a mandatory "confirm" window on shut down of the program. If this button is confirmed, then the timer for staying in space is...let's say 20 seconds (now you have at least 5 seconds to lock and get the aggression timer going). If the confirmation is not done, then the standard auto-warp off to safety. People who close the game and use loggoffski as a game mechanic lose their ships. Those who lose connection are still safe. It won't stop people from just ending the program with task manager or something, but those people are ***es who will probably figure a way around any system that can be fairly implemented anyway. Your "pretty easy to fix" solution is broken. Please read your own damn post to see why it's broken. No need to be a *** about it. All I was saying is that this would fix some of the problem, but those really determined and technically savvy will avoid even the best attempts to "fix" this "problem" anyway.
War Fairy	Posted - 2008.12.16 22:28:00 - [55] Quote: No need to be a ***** about it. All I was saying is that this would fix some of the problem, but those really determined and technically savvy will avoid even the best attempts to "fix" this "problem" anyway. Look if your post is self contradicting then I'm going to point it out. Especially when you claim an impossible problem is "pretty easy to solve." Next up. Next up since you claim people will always get around these things. How are people getting around the 15 minute timer after they've been aggroed?
Iria Ahrens Amarr 101st Space Marine Force The Leathernecks	Posted - 2008.12.16 22:33:00 - [56] I've a problem with the assumption that most disconnects at gates are logofskis. Just about every EVE client crash I've ever had was at a gate. Either during the process of jumping, or just due to proximity to the gate. As an example. Me and 3 other corp mates were waiting at a gate, waiting for a friend to show up in a raven. So we were all parked at the billboard. When I and another member waiting had our client crash. We logged back in, but we were the only ones that crashed, the others did not. Something about gates cause client crashes. Really. Maybe some people abuse the system, but don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. -- Nobody expects the Amarr Inquisition!
VoiceInTheDesert Gallente Diplomatic Disruption	Posted - 2008.12.16 22:56:00 - [57] Originally by: War Fairy Quote: No need to be a ***** about it. All I was saying is that this would fix some of the problem, but those really determined and technically savvy will avoid even the best attempts to "fix" this "problem" anyway. Look if your post is self contradicting then I'm going to point it out. Especially when you claim an impossible problem is "pretty easy to solve." Next up. Next up since you claim people will always get around these things. How are people getting around the 15 minute timer after they've been aggroed? As I have now stated twice, my "pretty easy to solve" applies only to those not able or applied enough to get around the issue with task manager. I didn't realize that I had to put all of my arguments in giant [disclaimer] brackets, I assumed people would read the whole post for what it was. I have acknowledged that the problem isn't fully fixable. I was merely saying that what I suggested is pretty much all that can be done and it would be pretty easy to do, but it won't completely fix the problem because CCP can't do something like lock a task manager remotely or check to see if this is being done. [/me caring about this issue/thread]
Barbara Nichole Cryogenic Consultancy Black Sun Alliance	Posted - 2008.12.16 23:26:00 - [58] Quote: Increase "disappear" timer to 120 seconds from 60 seconds. Problem solved. Oh but why stop there? Why not remove logoff completely, that way no one ever leaves. (sic)
Jordon Spikes	Posted - 2008.12.17 00:21:00 - [59] Originally by: Barbara Nichole Quote: Increase "disappear" timer to 120 seconds from 60 seconds. Problem solved. Oh but why stop there? Why not remove logoff completely, that way no one ever leaves. (sic) We already have that its call "The Matrix"
Armoured C Gallente Federation of Freedom Fighters Executive Outcomes	Posted - 2008.12.17 00:53:00 - [60] how about being better at pvp, if you have them pointed or bubbled, no amount of logoffski can help them

Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: 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.