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 17:47:00 - [1] PLEASE, I need an official response from CCP, why, after 3 years(maybe even more) of game development, you still have not fixed the logoffski bug. CCP, please, tell me.
Arvald Caldari Ninjas N Pirates Wong Thong Crew	Posted - 2008.12.16 17:48:00 - [2] because theres no way to tell if someone dropped connection or just logged off, also they cant stop peopel from loging off
Gone'Postal Minmatar Rage of Inferno Imperial Republic Of the North	Posted - 2008.12.16 17:51:00 - [3] Logging off isn't a bug.
emf Amarr Knights Of the Black Sun	Posted - 2008.12.16 17:51:00 - [4] Increase "disappear" timer to 120 seconds from 60 seconds. Problem solved.
Nebulous Minmatar Mirkur Draug'Tyr Ushra'Khan	Posted - 2008.12.16 17:53:00 - [5] Originally by: TheEndofTheWorld PLEASE, I need an official response from CCP, why, after 3 years(maybe even more) of game development, you still have not fixed the logoffski bug. CCP, please, tell me. I thought this debate had been well and truly buried.
TheEndofTheWorld Republic Military School	Posted - 2008.12.16 18:01:00 - [6] 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?
PeachesAndCream	Posted - 2008.12.16 18:04:00 - [7] Originally by: TheEndofTheWorld 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? lolz, because you stay in space for 15 minutes if you're aggro'd. You should've tried reading some newb guides instead of holding your breath for 3 years.
Farrellus Cameron Sturmgrenadier Inc Skunk-Works	Posted - 2008.12.16 18:12:00 - [8] 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 that's the "bug" you are talking about, then you are really barking up the wrong tree. That's an intentional feature to prevent people from leaving in the middle of combat. If you think it should be changed, that's all fine and good, but it's not a bug. ----------------------------------------------------
PeachesAndCream	Posted - 2008.12.16 18:16:00 - [9] Originally by: Farrellus Cameron If you think it should be changed, that's all fine and good, but it's not a bug. No, it's not fine. People who don't even know the rules of EVE shouldn't be lobbying their uneducated opinions.
Gnomes Rock	Posted - 2008.12.16 18:20:00 - [10] Originally by: PeachesAndCream lolz, because you stay in space for 15 minutes if you're aggro'd. You should've tried reading some newb guides instead of holding your breath for 3 years. And you gain an award for completely missing the point. Personally, I'd be happy if CCP just removed the jumping-into-a-new-system-to-remove-aggro-and-logoffski tatic. It's lame as anything.
PeachesAndCream	Posted - 2008.12.16 18:26:00 - [11] Really, and what point am I missing? You don't get aggro, you stay in space for 60 seconds. You get aggro and its 15 minutes - which the OP seemed to think was wrong.
Danton Marcellus Nebula Rasa Holdings	Posted - 2008.12.16 18:28:00 - [12] Make it so that 50% warp back in to where they logged/dropped and 50% land in a random spot close to a stellar object. Problem solved. Should/would/could have, HAVE you chav! Also Known As
Gnomes Rock	Posted - 2008.12.16 18:32:00 - [13] Originally by: PeachesAndCream Really, and what point am I missing? You don't get aggro, you stay in space for 60 seconds. You get aggro and its 15 minutes - which the OP seemed to think was wrong. His point was that if people can logout with invulnerability when without aggro (for example, as soon as someone enters local) because there's a chance that person might have had a bad connection, then why can't he log out with invulnerability in combat and claim that he d/c'd?
TheEndofTheWorld Republic Military School	Posted - 2008.12.16 18:33:00 - [14] Originally by: PeachesAndCream Really, and what point am I missing? You don't get aggro, you stay in space for 60 seconds. You get aggro and its 15 minutes - which the OP seemed to think was wrong. ppfft, rephrase it Why does CCP/game decide when it is an intention or unintentional disconnect. When I log off at gate when cloaked, I disappear in 60s, even when I am shot at after logging off, the game makes a decision and calls it unintentional, and makes you disappear. Even though VERY often it is very intentional. When I crash mid-pvp or just in space with pvp aggro, the game makes the decision that it was intentional and keeps you in space, yet almost 99%+ of the times it is unintentional.
Sidus Isaacs Gallente	Posted - 2008.12.16 18:33:00 - [15] Originally by: Danton Marcellus Make it so that 50% warp back in to where they logged/dropped and 50% land in a random spot close to a stellar object. Problem solved. Thats weak.
TheEndofTheWorld Republic Military School	Posted - 2008.12.16 18:34:00 - [16] Originally by: Gnomes Rock Originally by: PeachesAndCream Really, and what point am I missing? You don't get aggro, you stay in space for 60 seconds. You get aggro and its 15 minutes - which the OP seemed to think was wrong. His point was that if people can logout with invulnerability when without aggro (for example, as soon as someone enters local) because there's a chance that person might have had a bad connection, then why can't he log out with invulnerability in combat and claim that he d/c'd? yes, exactly
Danton Marcellus Nebula Rasa Holdings	Posted - 2008.12.16 18:35:00 - [17] Originally by: Sidus Isaacs Originally by: Danton Marcellus Make it so that 50% warp back in to where they logged/dropped and 50% land in a random spot close to a stellar object. Problem solved. Thats weak. That's a nonsense reply, why is it weak? Should/would/could have, HAVE you chav! Also Known As
War Fairy	Posted - 2008.12.16 18:52:00 - [18] Quote: I have missed kills due to 1. and I have died to due to 2. This is the core of the problem. The OP is just whining that things don't go his way. It is immpossible for a computer to tell intent. CCP created a consistant set of rules. These rules hurt everyone and help everyone regardless of who you are. How do you propose CCP tells if something is intentional or not?
Dkorg	Posted - 2008.12.16 18:53:00 - [19] Originally by: TheEndofTheWorld Originally by: Gnomes Rock Originally by: PeachesAndCream Really, and what point am I missing? You don't get aggro, you stay in space for 60 seconds. You get aggro and its 15 minutes - which the OP seemed to think was wrong. His point was that if people can logout with invulnerability when without aggro (for example, as soon as someone enters local) because there's a chance that person might have had a bad connection, then why can't he log out with invulnerability in combat and claim that he d/c'd? yes, exactly Then you'd just come back and ***** that people were logging off during combat rather than after jump but before combat.
Tippia Caldari Raddick Explorations BlackWater.	Posted - 2008.12.16 18:56:00 - [20] Originally by: TheEndofTheWorld When I log off at gate when cloaked, I disappear in 60s, even when I am shot at after logging off, the game makes a decision and calls it unintentional, and makes you disappear. Even though VERY often it is very intentional. When I crash mid-pvp or just in space with pvp aggro, the game makes the decision that it was intentional and keeps you in space, yet almost 99%+ of the times it is unintentional. Logging off is always intentional. Crashing is always unintentional. There is no way for the game to determine which of the two happened, or what the intention was. Live with it. No sig for me, thankyouverymuch.
Gnomes Rock	Posted - 2008.12.16 18:56:00 - [21] Edited by: Gnomes Rock on 16/12/2008 18:56:12 Originally by: Dkorg yes, exactly Then you'd just come back and ***** that people were logging off during combat rather than after jump but before combat. He obviously doesn't want mechanics to work like that, just pointing out the illogical paradox that annoys so many pvp'ers.
War Fairy	Posted - 2008.12.16 18:57:00 - [22] Originally by: TheEndofTheWorld When I log off at gate when cloaked, I disappear in 60s, even when I am shot at after logging off, That's not a bug. When you logged off you didn't have aggro.
Dkorg	Posted - 2008.12.16 18:59:00 - [23] Originally by: Gnomes Rock Edited by: Gnomes Rock on 16/12/2008 18:56:12 Originally by: Dkorg yes, exactly Then you'd just come back and ***** that people were logging off during combat rather than after jump but before combat. He obviously doesn't want mechanics to work like that, just pointing out the illogical paradox that annoys so many pvp'ers. Exactly. Any ship that takes longer than 60s to destroy would be unkillable.
Khemul Zula Amarr Black Plague.	Posted - 2008.12.16 19:02:00 - [24] What exactly do you want them to do? You can't have the client draw a distinction between 'logoff' and 'disconnect'. It is so rediculously easy to cause a disconnect that making the client look for a difference would be a waste of code. 1. Disconnect the phone cord or cable line (either at the wall, router/modem, or computer). 2. Reset the router or modem. 3. Disable the network connection (hell my laptop has a wi-fi on/off switch on the side I could simply click off). 4. Unplug the power cord to the router or modem. 5. Unplug the power cord to the computer. 6. Crash the client. 7. Crash the computer. The way CCP has it now is fine. ------ I can picture in my mind a world without war, a world without hate. And I can picture us attacking that world, because they'd never expect it.
Gnomes Rock	Posted - 2008.12.16 19:03:00 - [25] Originally by: Dkorg Exactly. Any ship that takes longer than 60s to destroy would be unkillable. -.-
emf Amarr Knights Of the Black Sun	Posted - 2008.12.16 19:03:00 - [26] 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...
Dr Ouspensky	Posted - 2008.12.16 19:10:00 - [27] IMHO they should make it so that if a player logs off and he's then aggro'd within a minute or so, that he will get an aggro timer regardless him being logged off. Right now it's so easy to initiate warp and log off midwarp and basically disappear the moment you drop out of warp in the middle of a bubble. If you would have been attacked within one minute after logging off, you should get an aggro timer cause you are using out of game mechanics to evade the inevitable really.
Tippia Caldari Raddick Explorations BlackWater.	Posted - 2008.12.16 19:14:00 - [28] Originally by: Dr Ouspensky IMHO they should make it so that if a player logs off and he's then aggro'd within a minute or so, that he will get an aggro timer regardless him being logged off. …and thus severely punish people who crash. No sig for me, thankyouverymuch.
War Fairy	Posted - 2008.12.16 19:15:00 - [29] 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.
Danton Marcellus Nebula Rasa Holdings	Posted - 2008.12.16 19:16:00 - [30] Originally by: Danton Marcellus Originally by: Sidus Isaacs Originally by: Danton Marcellus Make it so that 50% warp back in to where they logged/dropped and 50% land in a random spot close to a stellar object. Problem solved. Thats weak. That's a nonsense reply, why is it weak? No comeback, I thought as much. Using a coin toss system you're not entirely safe when logging back on after a legit disconnect yet there is the benefit of a doubt and half the time anyone waiting will get his man. Possibly even by scanning him down coming back at a 'safe'. What it also deal with is log-on traps, where the gang logging on no longer can be sure to enter the game where they want to be and if only half of them do it may well turn out to be very bad for them. Should/would/could have, HAVE you chav! Also Known As
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
Khemul Zula Amarr Black Plague.	Posted - 2008.12.17 03:01:00 - [61] Originally by: VoiceInTheDesert 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] Just give up now and admit it was a stupid idea to begin with. I won't bother to list the methods again, just go to page 1 and look for the post. Task manager is probably the most complicated and time consuming of the options available. Really the only 'fix' for the problem is to punish anyone who logs off in space. Everything else can be defeated with a simple press of a button. ------ I can picture in my mind a world without war, a world without hate. And I can picture us attacking that world, because they'd never expect it.
Sionn Klorgh Minmatar The Collective Against ALL Authorities	Posted - 2008.12.17 03:39:00 - [62] yay!
Phelaen Under the Wings of Fury Atrocitas	Posted - 2008.12.17 04:56:00 - [63] Edited by: Phelaen on 17/12/2008 04:57:08 Originally by: PeachesAndCream Originally by: Farrellus Cameron If you think it should be changed, that's all fine and good, but it's not a bug. No, it's not fine. People who don't even know the rules of EVE shouldn't be lobbying their uneducated opinions. Opinions are like arsehols dude, everybody has got one
Zenomorphious	Posted - 2008.12.17 05:15:00 - [64] After chasing a freighter pilot for 2 flippin hours in lowsec who deliberately kept logging on and off to bunny hop thru systems im telling ccp now that something has to be done about players who deliberately abuse the logoffski game mechanic. Its way too easy for someone in a freighter to get thru lowsec without any hassles..... Dont like what im sayin? go chew on someones shoe thats just stood in a barkers nest.
TheEndofTheWorld Republic Military School	Posted - 2008.12.17 07:58:00 - [65] Originally by: Armoured C how about being better at pvp, if you have them pointed or bubbled, no amount of logoffski can help them Do I really have to say anything about this... Originally by: Dkorg Nope. It's impossible to solve the disconnect problem. The rules apply equaly and fairly to everyone. Deal. The recent pos "exploit" was fair to everyone, everyone could have used it, so the rule applies equally and fairly... so why was this changed/nerfed banned? Nanoships were accessible to everyone, etc... 8/10 angel complex feature was available to everyone, so it was fair, right? Everyone could have a dev in their corp/alliance, so it was fair, right? Originally by: Tippia Don't want to lose your ship? Don't fight. Very very simple. As for this ignorant idea of a "logoffski bug" ù if you didn't get the kill, you didn't deserve the kill. Stop moaning. Don't want to lose your ship at gate? don't go to gates, very very simple... The feature that BS+ ships have immunity to solo players/small gangs is an interesting feature, even though CCP is talking about keeping the importance of small gangs....
Myra2007 Perkone	Posted - 2008.12.17 08:53:00 - [66] Most people who abuse this mechanic at least admit that its broken from a gameplay viewpoint. (Talking about logging off a freighter in a small gate camp in low sec while under gate cloak for people like amoured w/e who apparently don`t even get it.) Don`t really know why the people here get so worked up. No fear you are not going to be pvp¦ed against your consent any time soon. CCP is on your side so chill and let people discuss who actually play the game. -- 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
Garia666 Amarr T.H.U.G L.I.F.E White Core	Posted - 2008.12.17 09:17:00 - [67] This has even changed. people can now just disapear while there disrupted even with in a minute. www.garia.net
Druadan Aristotle Enterprises	Posted - 2008.12.17 09:29:00 - [68] 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. The reason this and other suggestions don't work is because of how connection protocols work. There are basically two types: TCP (stateful/connection-based) and UDP (stateless/connectionless, which I presume EVE uses for reasons explained further down). When a TCP connection is properly closed, the connection terminates with both sides (server and client in this case) agreeing that the connection is over and terminating gracefully. When a TCP connection closes due to the connection being broken by one side crashing or the route breaking due to a cable being removed, the connection terminates gracelessly and each side has to come to terms with that with no additional communication possible. So when you hit Ctrl+Q, the client is able to communicate to the server that the user is intentionally logging off and the server can begin your emergency warp. If you terminate the process directly (through Task Manager) then the connection terminates gracelessly and the server can assume (though not safely) that you crashed or had network problems. However, online games do not use TCP connections much because they carry with them a large overhead that affects the throughput of useful information between the client and server. Instead, they use UDP packets, and while I've never looked at what type of connection EVE uses, I'm assuming it is UDP. The difference is that TCP connections are like passing ping-pong balls down a length of hose to where you want them to go, whereas UDP connections are like switching out the lights and throwing the ping-pong balls toward their destination, hoping that they get to where you want. It's quicker, and due to the robust nature of packet-switching networks still quite reliable. The problem with the UDP method is that while hitting Ctrl+Q still means the client can sent a datagram to the server indicating that you have initiated a log-off, if you cut the client off or terminate it gracelessly via Task Manager, no such communication is possible, and the server is left not knowing whether you're still there and just haven't been able to get any of your datagrams through recently, or you've disconnected due to a network problem or a crash. It's not practical for a server to count the milliseconds between datagrams from each client, with a view to being able to say "o **" when you're late, and that's why when you pull your ethernet cable out while playing EVE, it takes a while even for the local client to figure out that you've disconnected. Ain't no easy answer for the logoffski problem. I don't think it would be right to call it part and parcel to the game, as it's an underhanded practice, but nor is it fair to say that CCP could easily solve it and just haven't been bothered to. Sig removed, inappropriate content. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint
Tippia Caldari Raddick Explorations BlackWater.	Posted - 2008.12.17 09:55:00 - [69] Originally by: TheEndofTheWorld Originally by: Dkorg Nope. It's impossible to solve the disconnect problem. The rules apply equaly and fairly to everyone. Deal. The recent pos "exploit" […] Nanoships […] 8/10 angel complex feature […] Everyone could have a dev Strawman since, no, they don't apply to everyone. An internet connection, and therefore connection issues, are universal. CCP has decided that people should not be punished for these issues. Suck it up. Quote: Originally by: Tippia Don't want to lose your ship? Don't fight. Very very simple. Don't want to lose your ship at gate? don't go to gates, very very simple... …except of course that combat has a very specific mechanic attached to it that is meant to promote the loss of ships. Gates do not. Quote: Originally by: Tippia As for this ignorant idea of a "logoffski bug" — if you didn't get the kill, you didn't deserve the kill. Stop moaning. The feature that BS+ ships have immunity to solo players/small gangs is an interesting feature, even though CCP is talking about keeping the importance of small gangs.... If you didn't get the kill, you didn't deserve the kill. Your failure to apply proper tactics is not the fault of CCP and has nothing to do with the number of people ni the gang. No sig for me, thankyouverymuch.
Reacz Caldari Havoc Violence and Chaos The Church.	Posted - 2008.12.17 10:07:00 - [70] Originally by: Druadan :O You just repeated one whole part of my Multi-Service Networks module from Uni. Funny thing is, I'd completely forgotten I'd learnt about it until I read your post. :D
Dkorg	Posted - 2008.12.17 11:52:00 - [71] Originally by: TheEndofTheWorld Originally by: Dkorg Nope. It's impossible to solve the disconnect problem. The rules apply equaly and fairly to everyone. Deal. The recent pos "exploit" was fair to everyone, everyone could have used it, so the rule applies equally and fairly... so why was this changed/nerfed banned? Straw man. One is a rule one is an exploit. Cry some where else. If the non combat log off timer is extended you're just going to be here *****ing that you were killed by it.
SiJira	Posted - 2008.12.17 16:44:00 - [72] all our stuff should just stay right where it is and be controlled by npcs when we log off Trashed sig, Shark was here

Pages: 1 2 3 :: [one 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.