open All Channels
seplocked EVE General Discussion
blankseplocked Low-sec gate camp: Impossible to escape?
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7

Author Topic

Cpt Cosmic
Posted - 2010.01.04 10:04:00 - [151]
 

Originally by: Rakshasa Taisab
Edited by: Rakshasa Taisab on 02/01/2010 13:29:33
Originally by: Milana Arkani
Anybody who insists that latency is not in any way an issue for a real-time Internet-based combat game is simply an idiot.

Cloaking and MWD activation does not depend on the client-side state, but rather the server-side state. If you had a comp.sci education you'd realize why it makes the MWD+cloak trick work.

You don't.

Now stop being an idiot and go try it out yourself. Most n00bs fail the first few times until they get the hang of the timing. You're a n00b, so you obviously didn't get the timing right if you even bothered trying.

stop acting like you would know anything cause you dont Rolling Eyes if you would have a clue than you would know that latency is actually helping and you dont need a high grade IT education to know that. you are the typical "I pretend to know something" guy but you think one sided and forget the biggest factor which is time and to figure that out you only need some working braincells.

you said by yourself, it is all server sided, but by the time you start locking a ship that aligned and cloaked at the same time, it is already cloaked for the server, you just have not received the data and all you will get is a "target is invulnerable" message.

Elena Laskova
Posted - 2010.01.04 10:15:00 - [152]
 

Edited by: Elena Laskova on 04/01/2010 10:54:07

Tippia:

Events 3 and 5 (sending commands to server) are client-side events. It's impossible for the server to stop them happening in the order I showed, because the ack from B's first command would arrive at A after A's first command is sent.

What happens at the server cannot be predicted, but the possibilities are known. The easiest approach for the server is to execute commands in arrival sequence. OTOH, it's technically possible for the server to change the sequence (execution order differs from arrival order) if it can see a shared context (such as A and B targeting each other). The scenario you described (every client receives and acks every other clients' commands) is possible but unlikely, as it propagates the worst latency to everyone.

UVPhoenix2
Rim Collection RC
Test Alliance Please Ignore
Posted - 2010.01.04 10:50:00 - [153]
 

If you have a lower latency to tranquility than your opponent, you are going to have the advantage when it comes to split-second moves. If you think the person living in the UK has no advantage over the person living in California, please go away and come back once you've RTFM.

Tippia
Caldari
Sunshine and Lollipops
Posted - 2010.01.04 11:00:00 - [154]
 

Originally by: Elena Laskova
Events 3 and 5 (sending commands to server) are client-side events. It's impossible for the server to stop them happening in the order I showed, because the ack from B's first command would arrive at A after A's first command is sent.
Then you're talking about a completely different situation than we're discussing here.

Until A's commmand is acked, he doesn't exist, so there is nothing B can do that makes any difference. The server already knows where A is, and will under certain circumstances force him into existance so that B can start taking actions, but that's not the scenario being discussed.

Yes, in general, you're right, but in this particular instance we know what must happen and in what order:
  1. A must send a command that uncloaks him.
  2. The server must recieve this command (otherwise, it will refuse any interaction with A).
  3. The server must rebroadcast it to B (otherwise, the next step can't happen).
  4. B must receive it (otherwise, A will not exist on B's client).
  5. B can now start sending commands that affect A.
  6. The server recieves those commands (and B hopes that A hasn't had time to sneak in a step 1.1 that was received and effected as a yet-unknown step 2.1, which would cause the server to now report back to B with a "pff! too slow, sucker").
The only question here is whether the server would allow those hypothetical 1.1 and 2.1 steps, and as anyone who've tried to grab uncloaking ships in a high-lag environment can attest… it does. Gladly.

5pinDizzy
Amarr
Pillow Fighters Inc
Posted - 2010.01.04 11:49:00 - [155]
 

I remember almost losing a pilgrim due to server lag.

Only thing that saved me was because it was a regional gate and I was too far away to point.

Even though I mashed it, went something like:

You cannot activate the cloaking module because you are cloaked from jump in.
You cannot activate the cloaking module because you are cloaked from jump in.
You cannot cloak because you are being targeted by someone.

I stopped using covop ships as much since then, as I realised no matter how fast I click cloak, lags going to kill me most of the time at some point.

Elena Laskova
Posted - 2010.01.04 11:51:00 - [156]
 

Edited by: Elena Laskova on 04/01/2010 12:31:48

Tippia: I used warp as an example because that makes it all **server initiated**.

A doesn't tell the server he's arrived. The server tells A and B that A has arrived.

Client-initiated sequences (which certainly happen, for example locking someone) are different again.

NB: I did make an assumption, that warp start is a client to server command (definitely true) and that warp arrival is a server to client status update (assumed, but very likely).


Your latest sequence looks reasonable. If A is currently successfully cloaked, and issues an uncloaking command, B can't act until (A's latency + server latency + B's latency) has occurred. Given A at 250 and B at 100, and assuming cmd/ack/cmd ... B's first command can beat A's second. The server may be adding delays (cf locking, warping) so arrival order may not be the same as execution order.

Of course if the client doesn't (always) require an ack before the next command is sent, A can get multiple commands to the server before B knows he's there. Mature client logic is often quite clever with this kind of thing - I'd be surprised if the EvE client doesn't do it to some extent.

Kalroth
Yet Another Mining Corp
Posted - 2010.01.04 12:03:00 - [157]
 

This thread is too long - I gave up after page 3.

One thing though that I found odd is that the OP clicked fullspeed. Nevermind he is clicking with the mouse, but why is it fiddling around with the speed options?

In this case if select your desired destination, highlight it in your overview and click warp to or align to then mwd+cloak and follow the other instructions. Your ship automatically goes to full speed so never any reason to use that at all while traveling. That's just wierd.

Johan Sabbat
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
Posted - 2010.01.04 12:55:00 - [158]
 

A very interesting and educational thread,

But there is something I'd like to know...

Who is number 1 ?

Originally by: Le Skunk
This thread is redundant.

Everyone knows im the second best tackler in the game

SKUNK



--- Fake Edit

I'm not a number

Xina Tutor
Amarr
Black Arrows
Sev3rance
Posted - 2010.01.04 13:07:00 - [159]
 


Seems to me you can queue the commands and get through most camps.

Until recently I played on a satelite connection with a 1800 ping. I fly cov ops. I was rarely ever caught in a camp, including bubbles and all the rest. Even now I play on a 400 ping connection.

The mwd/cloak trick still works, np. You can get away 99% of the time, in a frig anyway. I fly blockade runners as well, and so forth.

Getting the timing right is the big thing.

Wacktopia
Sicarius.
Legion of The Damned.
Posted - 2010.01.04 13:14:00 - [160]
 

Originally by: UVPhoenix2
If you think the person living in the UK has no advantage over the person living in California, please go away and come back once you've RTFM.


So, you think that physical distance is the most important factor when considering network latency when the signal can travel at the speed of light? Interesting. Why is it then that someone living in the the middle of nowhere in the UK has a higher EVE latency than someone living in a well-connected area in California? I mean, the Californian mice must have to run REALLY fast to beat the UK mice to the servers, right?

UVPhoenix2
Rim Collection RC
Test Alliance Please Ignore
Posted - 2010.01.04 13:29:00 - [161]
 

Originally by: Wacktopia
Originally by: UVPhoenix2
If you think the person living in the UK has no advantage over the person living in California, please go away and come back once you've RTFM.


So, you think that physical distance is the most important factor when considering network latency when the signal can travel at the speed of light? Interesting. Why is it then that someone living in the the middle of nowhere in the UK has a higher EVE latency than someone living in a well-connected area in California? I mean, the Californian mice must have to run REALLY fast to beat the UK mice to the servers, right?


He's doing it wrong.

Doctor Penguin
Amarr
Sacred Templars
Black Star Alliance
Posted - 2010.01.04 13:40:00 - [162]
 

Call your ship "Pirate Bait" and CRTL-Q as soon as you hit hostiles. I recall getting into a gatecamp in Atlar/Illamur and that working, somehow. Laughing

Acedias
Aliastra
Posted - 2010.01.04 13:48:00 - [163]
 

You people.. bleh.

If you die in eve, then you were obviously not trying hard enough. Try harder next time.

Eunoli
Posted - 2010.01.04 15:54:00 - [164]
 

There was a great suggestion earlier in this thread that I hope the OP tries out:

Go to an asteroid belt and engage some rats.

Start by using the mouse to click the target, lock on, then fire the weapons. Put one of your weapons in the spot of your cloaking device. Check the log to see how long it takes between individual clicks to register.

Now, do the same thing but use the keyboard. Press the keys in rapid succession (do not wait at all - just roll your finger across the keys in order) and check the log.

You will be amazed to see how much time is used by mouse clicking. No matter how fast you are at mouse clicking using the keyboard is faster in this type of situation.

Lazr GoPew
Stimulus
Rote Kapelle
Posted - 2010.01.04 16:26:00 - [165]
 

just posting to confirm i actually read this whole thread \o/

(now lets hope my boss doesnt play eve and knows my char names ;< )

Ana Vyr
Caldari
Posted - 2010.01.04 17:16:00 - [166]
 

As soon as you hit "warp to" or "align to" your screen will give a lurch as the ship comes to life. Hit your MWD and cloak right then. I've found that jumping the gun on that lurch leads to bad things happening :), but as long as I activate stuff immediately after that lurch, I'm good.

Esola
Posted - 2010.01.04 18:48:00 - [167]
 

Originally by: Ana Vyr
As soon as you hit "warp to" or "align to" your screen will give a lurch as the ship comes to life. Hit your MWD and cloak right then. I've found that jumping the gun on that lurch leads to bad things happening :), but as long as I activate stuff immediately after that lurch, I'm good.


I might try to look for that. If I loose a cloaked ship at a gate it is because of the definite time gap between "align" and the time you can "cloak" (at least from my client/ISP):

1. Align
2. Immediately hit cloak
3. wait for cloak to activate...wait for cloak to activate...
4. cloak never activeates because I was still jump-cloaked when I hit it
5. locked/boom

If I hit align, and then immediately try to cloak, that is too fast (for my connection?), and the cloak doesn't activate. I absolutely have to pause between align and pressing the cloak PF key.

That has produces the following variation once or twice:

1. Hit align,
2. Pause, hit cloak
3. wait for cloak to activate...wait for cloak to activate...
4. Assume I must have hit cloak to fast, as in the above example
5. Hit cloak again
5. cloak activates
6 cloak deactivates
7. locked/boom

Lag/latency can certainly cause lost cloakers, maybe depending on the quality of your connection.

Lady Spank
Amarr
In Praise Of Shadows
Posted - 2010.01.04 19:02:00 - [168]
 

Originally by: Acedias
You people.. bleh.

If you die in eve, then you were obviously not trying hard enough. Try harder next time.


If your not dying, your not trying hard enough, or blobbing.

Rhoulaki
Posted - 2010.01.05 04:11:00 - [169]
 

Probability OP is a troll by page:

Page 1: 46.8%
Page 2: 83.7%
Page 3: 99.9%
Page 4: 100%
Page 5: 100%
Page 6: 100%

Sumelar
Posted - 2010.01.05 06:37:00 - [170]
 

Originally by: Milana Arkani
Originally by: chatgris
Originally by: Milana Arkani
[ 2010.01.01 22:34:44 ] (notify) Speed changed to 168 m/s
[ 2010.01.01 22:34:47 ] (notify) You cannot cloak your ship as you are being targeted by someone.


44 - 47: 3 seconds? no wonder you were caught. there shouldn't even be a second between the time you hit align and the time you hit cloak.


I clicked the full speed icon and then immediately clicked the cloak button.

Of course, there is also some latency.

(Btw: The log time is also probably truncated to the nearest second. So, it is not necessarily 3 full seconds.)



Which means it was at least 2 seconds, which is still too long by far. Lag doesn't account for it either, you were just too slow.

Elena Laskova
Posted - 2010.01.05 07:28:00 - [171]
 

Edited by: Elena Laskova on 05/01/2010 08:27:34

EDIT: This post contains some important technical errors. Of course the same can be said for most posts in this thread, but still .... See the following post for corrections.

Original text starts after this line:

Still too many assumptions being made here.

It looks to me that align and normal acceleration induce a server-side delay, and block your next command until an ack is received. (NB - it could also be a client-side delay).

It looks like activating an AB (no motion involved there) avoids the delay, with the net effect of instantly removing the cloak, and allowing you to send your first server command before the other local ships have "seen" you.

This would explain why the advice provided by exerienced players is correct (highly likely - they do it all the time), but some alternative command sequences are not effective (there is evidence for this - several different people have described similar unsuccessful sequences).

If that's the case, the endless insults about slow reactions, poor choice of commands, etc are unjustified. This stuff isn't documented, and EvE players in general seem to be clueless about the basics of client/server design. Meaning a rookie has no chance at all to figure out how a gatecamp works unless they are happy to lose 10 or 20 ships testing it out.

I think a lot more players would venture into lowSec and even nullSec if this kind of information was avaialable. Of course this would require the EvE "community" to take the trouble to learn *why* things like this work (because it's clear all the "knowledge" is a result of disorganized and incomplete experiments). And explain it in a way that's accessible to rookies, and undertandable. This kind of idiotic thread isn't a sign that EvE is "deep", or requires superior intelligence to play. Keeping important information secret can provide an advantage, but it doesn't make you smart.

Ban Doga
Posted - 2010.01.05 07:54:00 - [172]
 

Originally by: Elena Laskova
Edited by: Elena Laskova on 05/01/2010 07:39:06

Still too many assumptions being made here.

It looks to me that align and normal acceleration induce a server-side delay, and block your next command until an ack is received. (NB - it could also be a client-side delay).

It looks like activating an AB (no motion involved there) avoids the delay, with the net effect of instantly removing the cloak, and allowing you to send your first server command before the other local ships have "seen" you.

This would explain why the advice provided by exerienced players is correct (highly likely - they do it all the time), but some alternative command sequences are not effective (there is evidence for this - several different people have described similar unsuccessful sequences).

If that's the case, the endless insults about slow reactions, poor choice of commands, etc are unjustified. This stuff isn't documented, and EvE players in general seem to be clueless about the basics of client/server design. Meaning a rookie has no chance at all to figure out how a gatecamp works unless they are happy to lose 10 or 20 ships testing it out.

I think a lot more players would venture into lowSec and even nullSec if this kind of information was avaialable. Of course this would require the EvE "community" to take the trouble to learn *why* things like this work (because it's clear all the "knowledge" is a result of disorganized and incomplete experiments). And explain it in a way that's accessible to rookies, and undertandable. This kind of idiotic thread isn't a sign that EvE is "deep", or requires superior intelligence to play. There is a big difference between having appropriate knowledge, and being smart. Keeping important information secret doesn't make you smart. It makes you a prat.


Activating a module (AB or MWD) cannot be your first command.

The jump-in cloak from the gate will prevent it from activating (instead of the module dropping the jump-in cloak).
You may have noticed this:
"07:47:28 Notify Interference from the cloaking you are doing is preventing your systems from functioning at this time."

You really have to issue a movement command or wait till the cloak drops by timeout.


So I'm wondering...
Did you actually try your theory in game (activating an AB as best way to drop the jump-in cloak) or did you just went by your own observation which was

Originally by: Elena Laskova

too many assumptions being made here.


couger malthas
Amarr
Violent Purge PLC
Posted - 2010.01.05 07:58:00 - [173]
 

WTF, has Eve done, spawn a bunch of limp wristed carebears?

If i remember Eve gives warnings for one when you enter lowsec, and second off they are just playing the game for how they see it.

When i started playing eve i remember getting ganked in empire and i know a lot of people who got ganked as well. You wanna know what we did? We grew some balls and got a new ship. If you got a problem with PVP or getting ganked there is more then one way to get out of it, 1 being stay in .5+ or going and playing HelloKitty Online.

So please stop clogging up the forums with how you forgot your big girl panties at home.Laughing

Elena Laskova
Posted - 2010.01.05 08:09:00 - [174]
 

Edited by: Elena Laskova on 05/01/2010 08:24:17

Ban Doga

I didn't (and won't) test anything.

I did make a mistake though - I trusted I'd remembered one of the many recommended methods for getting through a gate camp, and it seems I was wrong.

Either way I stand by my intended comment, which is that the game would be a lot better if these stupid tricks were clearly identified and documented. Preferably by CCP, and preferably in a repeatable tutorial.

It would probably take a rookie several hundred excruciatingly boring hours and several hundred ships to figure out all the stupid counter-intuitive techniques needed for basic EvE PvP. It's hardly surprising a lot of rookies don't bother.


Couger

You sound like someone's great-grandfather explaining how easy modern folks have it with electricity, running water, telephones, and cars.

You're welcome to head on over to goonSpace and insult goonSwarm in local if you want to recapture the thrill of your early days in EvE. But if you're not planning on spending your next 20 hours of play getting ganked, why should I?

Or are you suggesting that there's an EvE initiation ceremony? First you prove you've been ganked by losers 100 times, then you get to join the secret society?

Argat Bogotsch
Posted - 2010.01.05 08:44:00 - [175]
 

At times like those I usually just take the situation like it is. I just set up orbit around them and start firing. Hell, if I'm not going to get out alive at least I'll go down swingin'.

Malcanis
Caldari
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
Posted - 2010.01.05 09:36:00 - [176]
 

Originally by: Elena Laskova


If that's the case, the endless insults about slow reactions, poor choice of commands, etc are unjustified. This stuff isn't documented, and EvE players in general seem to be clueless about the basics of client/server design. Meaning a rookie has no chance at all to figure out how a gatecamp works unless they are happy to lose 10 or 20 ships testing it out.


There's another, considerably more efficient, way for them to find out, but it involves not being an argumentative jerk to people who know more about the game than them. A modicum of social skills will take a new player much further in EVE than any number of fancy G15 keyboards and low-latency connections.

Elena Laskova
Posted - 2010.01.05 09:48:00 - [177]
 

Malcanis

This thread, regardless of what OP or I have said, like most PvP threads, contains contradictory information. The same happens if you ask questions in an ingame channel.

And unless you're *already* an expert you're not able to select and use the good information, and reject the bad.

The only consistent verifiable advice I've received about learning EvE PvP is to join EvE University and/or do the Agony Unleashed class. That's it. The whole lowSec/noSec game seems to be balanced on two (admittedly excellent) player initiatives.

And for completely different reasons (or perhaps not?): the overwhelming majority of EvE players stay in highSec or w-Space.

Malcanis
Caldari
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
Posted - 2010.01.05 10:25:00 - [178]
 

Originally by: Elena Laskova
Malcanis

This thread, regardless of what OP or I have said, like most PvP threads, contains contradictory information. The same happens if you ask questions in an ingame channel.

And unless you're *already* an expert you're not able to select and use the good information, and reject the bad.

The only consistent verifiable advice I've received about learning EvE PvP is to join EvE University and/or do the Agony Unleashed class. That's it. The whole lowSec/noSec game seems to be balanced on two (admittedly excellent) player initiatives.

And for completely different reasons (or perhaps not?): the overwhelming majority of EvE players stay in highSec or w-Space.


Personally testing 2 or 3 suggestions, even if mutually contradictory, is still hugely more efficient than personally testing whatever ideas may occurr.

You can also look up the advice giver's combat record on battleclinic. Someone who spends a lot of time in 0.0 but has very few losses to gatecamps is more likely to be qualified to give advice on escaping gatecamps than someone who has only set foot outside empire once, and lost their ship doing it.

Generally in threads like this you will get a couple of mischevious players making harmful suggestions but they're usually pretty obvious, even if only from the responses of other players.

With respect to the specific query posed by the OP, I will asert that the MWD-Cloak trick is outrageously effective. (Check my battleclinic record for lo-sec losses if you like - I cant even remember losing anything in lo-sec last year. Maybe a pod to a smartbomber about this time last year).

In fact I will further assert that MWD-Cloak largely unnecessary, since lo-sec camps are far rarer than popularly believed. I travel through lo-sec quite often, and I would estimate that I even see a single ship on overview less than 1 gate in 12. 90% of those get the hell away ASAP, since, like me, they're travelling.

A few minutes worth with the map, and planning an alternate route to the obvious autopilot offering will almost always obviate the problem.

Your point on documentation is well taken, but the fact is, EVE isn't not well documented. It would be a monumental task do so fully, and futile, since the document would be out of date before it was complete. And really, with respect to things like tactics, I dont think it's CCP's place to document such things. They should be for the players to evolve, learn and counter. Sometimes I suspect that the minimal documentation is actually a deliberate policy of CCP's to encourage player interaction.

In any case, a person who would rather argue with those who are trying to help him than learn will never do well in EVE, no matter how well documented it was. Larkonis, who knows as much about living in lo-sec as anyone, gave the OP complete and correct advice early on, and the OP rejected it rather than admit that he was in any way at fault.

mirel yirrin
Gallente
Ore Mongers
BricK sQuAD.
Posted - 2010.01.05 11:51:00 - [179]
 

obvious troll/wrong forum

Ti'anla
Minmatar
Posted - 2010.01.05 12:18:00 - [180]
 

I don't know if anyone suggested this (sorry if so, I'm a bit rushed for time this moment so only read the first couple of pages) the way I tend to try to avoid gate camps is by using the map. It isn't 100% accurate, but you can do it in warp or whatever else..

Basically just focus the system map on your route, set the filter for Players in system in last 30 minutes, and if a system shows more than a few pilots there, switch over to the ships destroyed in the last thirty minutes filter. It isn't perfect, but at least gives warning signs if you're flying into a trap.


Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7

This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 


The new forums are live

Please adjust your bookmarks to https://forums.eveonline.com

These forums are archived and read-only