open All Channels
seplocked Features and Ideas Discussion
blankseplocked cdt/con-loss vs. regular log-out. A proposal for a change ...
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: [1] 2

Author Topic

Plutoinum
Mercenaries of Andosia
Veritas Immortalis
Posted - 2006.11.15 12:08:00 - [1]
 

Edited by: Plutoinum on 15/11/2006 12:21:21
Distinguishing between intentionally logging off and cdt/con-loss IS possible.

Here a game mechanics that comes into my mind:

1) Normal log out (Player wants to exit the game):

- logging off takes 1 minute with a countdown/bar displayed.
- during that time you do nothing and have to stay at your place
- using any ship function cancels it
- if you get aggressed by another player during that time, you get the pvp timer
- if not aggressed, you warp out and disappear from space
- can't use it while in a bubble or still cloaked after jumping through a gate


2) Behaviour after an unintended connection loss / cdt:

- your ship aligns to warp out after like 15 seconds
- can be scrambled by bubble or warp disruptor during that time
- if you get aggressed during that time, you get the pvp timer

Intention:
- get people to log out at a safe place, don't allow them to escape by logging off
- motivate people to log back in after cdt/con-loss. After that they can use the regular mechanism to log-off described in 1). If they have a pvp timer running, bad luck, that's already current game mechanics. So no change.

Discuss !

Mar Drakar
LDK
Test Friends Please Ignore
Posted - 2006.12.03 12:55:00 - [2]
 

oh but there is like NO WAY to say if the eve-client has CTD, ctrlQ'ed, or the ln cable went out on purpose or not... all you can do is wait for a timeout on a socket... and thats it... either you get some packets or not, no way to say if he client is/has been running.

Plutoinum
Mercenaries of Andosia
Veritas Immortalis
Posted - 2006.12.04 11:12:00 - [3]
 

Edited by: Plutoinum on 04/12/2006 11:17:54
Originally by: Mar Drakar
oh but there is like NO WAY to say if the eve-client has CTD, ctrlQ'ed, or the ln cable went out on purpose or not... all you can do is wait for a timeout on a socket... and thats it... either you get some packets or not, no way to say if he client is/has been running.


The point is, if you cdt, this method would force you to log back in, because otherwise you get probed down and die. Simple. Same would happen, if you ctrl-q. So no reason to do it. Nothing to win.
If you want to be removed from space (be unprobable), you had to do a regular log out at a rather safe position and wait, until the timer runs down. That would be the only way to log and get your ship unprobably removed from space.

It makes sense. Everyone could still quit playing, when he likes within one minute, but he couldn't just ctrl-q or disconnect anymore to do it. If he ctrl-q or cdts his ship would stay in space and be probable for some time like 10-20 minutes. So he needs to log back in to get his ship away from there.

Minimal impact on fair player, big loss for lamers/cheaters. That's how it's supposed to be. Cool

Protunia
Gallente
Posted - 2006.12.04 12:52:00 - [4]
 

I dont see this happening anyways who wants Ever Quest log outs??? not me.




Raul deMalte
The Older Gamers
Atlas Alliance
Posted - 2006.12.04 15:19:00 - [5]
 

/signed

Alkirin
Gallente
Araton Aerospace Holdings
The Black Alliance
Posted - 2006.12.04 18:57:00 - [6]
 

Yeah, this is easy to impliment in EQ/WoW because the penalties for dieing aren't that great.

Regardless, it is better to leave it as is, instead of running the risk of screwing legitimate players over.

Jollyreaper
Gallente
Ace Adventure Corp
Posted - 2006.12.09 08:07:00 - [7]
 

And what happens if your net connection dies? Oh, crap! There goes the ship. Can't log back in to save it.

Valandril
Caldari
Ex-Mortis
Posted - 2006.12.09 08:59:00 - [8]
 

Originally by: Jollyreaper
And what happens if your net connection dies? Oh, crap! There goes the ship. Can't log back in to save it.
Same as now, you warpout unless in bubble. But honestly, even online what u will do against 30man bubble camp ?
Most ppl logout and they override our bubble :(

/signed

Tarron Sarek
Gallente
Biotronics Inc.
Initiative Mercenaries
Posted - 2006.12.09 09:08:00 - [9]
 

Edited by: Tarron Sarek on 09/12/2006 09:08:51
It's pretty easy.
3 minutes logoff timer if player is involved in PvP (locked, webbed, scrambled, bubbled, etc.) or if player is in 0.0.
Adjustable, of course.

Trojanman190
D00M.
Northern Coalition.
Posted - 2006.12.11 08:27:00 - [10]
 

Edited by: Trojanman190 on 11/12/2006 08:28:58
A minute to logoff? Neg...


WeirdNoise
Caldari
tagueuletoi
Posted - 2006.12.11 13:37:00 - [11]
 

30 seconds, like in Anarchy Online.
Why would it be hard to implement in Eve, pray tell us.
Risk does make the game exciting, even if frustrating when you lose stuff due to connection.
Logging off has been a major exploit in eve since the beginning.
I dont see why it is here in a game that boasts of being hardcore, pvp-oriented, no-mercy game.
Either you cater to the strong types, or you cater to the wimps. CCP should make a choice (and I wont start on other topics).

I may be a wimp in game, but I love it when a game doesnt cater to my wimpiness. I want it to be unmerciful. Even the existence of reimbursement petitions bother me.
What's in a game if you cant lose anything of your precious pixels? At least make us die in virtual worlds, if we dont have the balls to fight IRL. What kind of a personality does it take to wish to be overprotected in a friggin videogame?

Daar
Gallente
United Alliance
Posted - 2006.12.12 12:51:00 - [12]
 

Edited by: Daar on 12/12/2006 12:51:34
Edited by: Daar on 12/12/2006 12:50:51
I'm sorry, but with my ****ty ISP, I'd really, really hate this design. Sometimes my ISP can be so nice and disconnect my net, without apparent reasons, for an hour, two, or the entire night (and I can't really change that... damn monopoly Crying or Very sad).

With this, should I EVER get disconnected by my ISP in 0.0 space, I can be almost sure my ship and pod won't be there when I come back. EDIT: Heck, 0.0... or low sec.

/NOT signed

Janni Ratkaainen
Posted - 2006.12.13 11:57:00 - [13]
 

it would be a great idea in a perfect world with no blackouts/isp disconnects.

sadly there are many players in EVE who dont have the benefit of playing from a cushy stable first world connection. My ISP also drops for no apparent reason sometimes and in winter we sometimes have hectic powe faliures. Its not fair for me to lose alot of isk and a good ship because of factors i can't control. Its essentially saying that EVE can only be played by those who can afford stable connections in first world nations with good infrastructure. CCP will lose alot of players if they impliment this.

Leave it as is.

Lunarra
Enslave.
Waterboard
Posted - 2006.12.13 13:52:00 - [14]
 

Edited by: Lunarra on 13/12/2006 14:25:02
I think we all have to deal one day or the other with an unvoluntary desconnection.
But for us pvper for exemple, we learn to live with it and accept it.
The problem become real when pple keep logging if they caught in a trap a realise that they can't get away. This takes the whole trapping aspect of the game away. Pilots strangely always get a ISP trouble or whatnot in the middle of a fight, and somehow much less when in empire at peace.
1000s of pilots pvp in 0.0 this way. And there are more important "bugs" in the game that might make you lose a ship.
I would say in 0.0 space ships should stay in space for a while after diconnection even if not under agro. Empire could be a different set of rules but there again i don't see why.
Since this warp to 0.0 (that i fully agree is a good idea) ships just need to warp, jump, and if caught in any form of gank, bble or anything that could be putting their ship in danger, they just need to log. Who cares about stabs when you don't need them anymore anyway.

Jessica Lorelei
Minmatar
Sebiestor Tribe
Posted - 2006.12.13 14:02:00 - [15]
 

how about removing in-space logouts?


Smagd
Encina Technologies
Namtz' aar K'in
Posted - 2006.12.14 17:09:00 - [16]
 

If you're the attacker and suffer a CTD, you're most likely space dust.

I second extending this to the victims, really.

Bad luck is bad luck on either side.

Smagd
Encina Technologies
Namtz' aar K'in
Posted - 2006.12.14 17:15:00 - [17]
 

Originally by: Jessica Lorelei
how about removing in-space logouts?


Uh, I've been in Wicked Creek once, closest station 7 jumps, conquered and unaccessible to me. Closest station I *could* dock at was 14 jumps and 2 regions away in Curse, and I had to smuggle a battleship through 2 systems with hostile stations.

Now, if I'd been ratting I'd second getting a POS set up first, but I was really just helping out with a COSMOS agent, and guess what: It got late, and we went to do another of the missions the following day.

Under the conditions you propose, I'd probably find myself very unwilling to help out unless someone granted me a room for the night somewhere nearby.

Thorondir 42
B L U E
Posted - 2006.12.14 18:18:00 - [18]
 

/signed, with one exception:

logout after 1 should only be possible, if you dont have pvp timer

Phandros Kiel
Posted - 2006.12.18 19:14:00 - [19]
 

/signed

I fully support the notion of providing some kind of a fix to prevent people from logging out to avoid fight, login traps and the like. However, there is nothing that will cure the problem, because as I have seen in many games before... people will resort to physically unplugging their modems to emulate a disconnection.

Done in that fashion, there is no way to differentiate a ctd or honest-to-goodness loss of service from an unplug.

Now, people from the 'CCP hasn't done anything to stop us, so it's a legitemate strategy' camp would probably gnash their teeth, curse the spawn of CCP staff... suck it up and start fitting cloaks or accepting the consequences of their actions. Some would become 'pluggers... but those kinds of people are blatantly cheating, hands down, and they would no longer be able to claim that it's fair play. There is no way to prove it, of course, so I wouldn't expect any bans to be handed out for unplugging to save ones' own arse.

It's not a cure, but it would certainly lessen the number of people who would be willing to resort to that style of play.

One addendum. Logging off in station should be instantaneous, as there would be no purpose to making someone wait.

Gipasaurous
Posted - 2006.12.18 20:09:00 - [20]
 

Station only logout would make the game better in so many ways!

I disconnect about 5 times a day, but to elimnate all the lameness from people disconnecting on purpose, I'd take my chances.

Miss Mickey
Posted - 2007.01.11 08:26:00 - [21]
 

Any system which can potentially punish a player that has had a CTD will be bad for the game imho. Often the issue is totally out of the players hands and for them to lose out because of this will only make them unhappy (less money for CCP) and make the petition queue even longer.

The OPs idea will simply INCREASE the amount of gate camping. What needs to change is the reason ppl camp gates.

Orryc
Out of Order
Posted - 2007.01.11 21:27:00 - [22]
 

Originally by: Plutoinum
Edited by: Plutoinum on 15/11/2006 12:21:21
Distinguishing between intentionally logging off and cdt/con-loss IS possible.

Here a game mechanics that comes into my mind:

1) Normal log out (Player wants to exit the game):

- logging off takes 1 minute with a countdown/bar displayed.
- during that time you do nothing and have to stay at your place
- using any ship function cancels it
- if you get aggressed by another player during that time, you get the pvp timer
- if not aggressed, you warp out and disappear from space
- can't use it while in a bubble or still cloaked after jumping through a gate


2) Behaviour after an unintended connection loss / cdt:

- your ship aligns to warp out after like 15 seconds
- can be scrambled by bubble or warp disruptor during that time
- if you get aggressed during that time, you get the pvp timer

Intention:
- get people to log out at a safe place, don't allow them to escape by logging off
- motivate people to log back in after cdt/con-loss. After that they can use the regular mechanism to log-off described in 1). If they have a pvp timer running, bad luck, that's already current game mechanics. So no change.

Discuss !


Why not just say this. Leave logging off method the same, but you stay in space for, as you said 15 seconds and than warp off. If engaged in that 15 seconds you get agro timer, making it possible to probe you out, unless you relog after the CTD and get to a new safe. Maybe make it immune to scramble or bubbles, but with the agro timer you will be findable, but you should have enough time to log in again. Make it so that those who log will be subject to losing their ships. I would be inclined to allow scrambling, but for those who simply CTD, it will make it impossible to login in time.

Simple change, adding the agro timer will allow those hunting time to find their target, those who ctd get time to login and save themselves.

Next question though... those who log in bubbles, then multiple log to avoid warping back in to the same location. That definately needs mixing.

O

Sol Flare
Tenth Legion
Posted - 2007.01.12 01:23:00 - [23]
 

Problem with the 15 seconds deal is that allows for someone to just happen to warp in on you if you drop connection, then they have free reign on you and a life time to lock and scramble you. Really you only need about 2 seconds. This allows for some flexibility.

If user logs out after a gate jump or while cloaked.. the ship should decloak for 2 seconds, long enough for any tackler on gate to catch it, before starting its logoff warp sequence. This also covers for genuine drops by not allowing some lucky person to warp to a gate and find a ship sitting there for 10sec. while someone is trying desprately to log back in.

If you have a gate camp and someone logs when they jump in... a tackler can easily lock a ship uncloaked for 2 seconds... You can't lock a target the second you see in on your overview anyway.. you need to wait 1-2 seconds. So by uncloaking for 2 seconds before starting the warp out will allow a frig a fighting chance to lock and tackle the ship.

No reason to have a ship sitting in system for 15secs at every logoff. 15mins if engaged is fine by me... but if I drop, I have a wireless connection btw.. I WISH I had wired connections where I live, but if I drop I don't want my ship sitting exposed for 15 seconds for anybody to just happen to stumble upon it.

So since I have the frustrating experience of being dropped on occassion, and more frequently then I would like, there has to be some protection there... and 2 seconds I can buy. If someone can tackle my ship after an accidental drop using the 2 seconds explained above... then more power to them but don't let them catch me with my pants down for 15 seconds...

Jounin Tradoc
Gallente
Federal Navy Academy
Posted - 2007.01.12 01:55:00 - [24]
 

I'll agree with the 2 seconds proposal...but for everything else - No.

Between all of the people claiming to be 'hardcore' pvpers, you can easily find someone to fight.

However, if your complaint is that people are running when they don't want to fight; then forcing them to waste time by not only having to sit idly by while they get nuked, but by watching about the last few hours of their playtime go to waste over griefing; will leave you with far fewer targets, and more complaints about people not traveling into lowsec/0.0

If you want to make the minority of pvpers happy and completely half the population of low sec/0.0, then by all means, impliment the OP's idea.

Reggie Stoneloader
Poofdinkles
Posted - 2007.01.12 02:24:00 - [25]
 

Originally by: Daar
I'm sorry, but with my ****ty ISP, I'd really, really hate this design. Sometimes my ISP can be so nice and disconnect my net, without apparent reasons, for an hour, two, or the entire night (and I can't really change that... damn monopoly Crying or Very sad).../NOT signed
Ditto. Wi-Fi dies for hours or days at a time. "Log back in and keep fighting" isn't an option for me.

I suspect that such a protocol would lead to a hundred mission runners a day petitioning for their ships back. Either CCP would have to start giving ships away without investigation, diverting more resources to claims, or not giving it back. All those are bad scenarios.

Jounin Tradoc
Gallente
Federal Navy Academy
Posted - 2007.01.12 02:32:00 - [26]
 

Originally by: Reggie Stoneloader
Originally by: Daar
I'm sorry, but with my ****ty ISP, I'd really, really hate this design. Sometimes my ISP can be so nice and disconnect my net, without apparent reasons, for an hour, two, or the entire night (and I can't really change that... damn monopoly Crying or Very sad).../NOT signed
Ditto. Wi-Fi dies for hours or days at a time. "Log back in and keep fighting" isn't an option for me.

I suspect that such a protocol would lead to a hundred mission runners a day petitioning for their ships back. Either CCP would have to start giving ships away without investigation, diverting more resources to claims, or not giving it back. All those are bad scenarios.


But hey, the griefers will be happy. That counts for something....doesn't it?

.....

....anybody?

FactorzGT
Vendetta Underground
Posted - 2007.01.12 03:07:00 - [27]
 

i made a similar post ... my idea was to nerf the repeated logoffers ... 1 log is allow, 2nd log ok annoying but let it slide ... 3rd log inside 45min from the first one and you're a sitting duck ...

basicalyl if you're having leget cpu issues, don't log back in unless you know you're good to go ... otherwise consider a restart to help out your cpu

Tarron Sarek
Gallente
Biotronics Inc.
Initiative Mercenaries
Posted - 2007.01.12 03:28:00 - [28]
 

Edited by: Tarron Sarek on 12/01/2007 03:38:43
Originally by: Reggie Stoneloader
I suspect that such a protocol would lead to a hundred mission runners a day petitioning for their ships back.
Mission running is PvE. But a logout timer should be applied to PvP.
Also since telling apart intentional and unintentional disconnect is too hard and problematic, there can't be seperate solutions.

concept:
1. Instant logout in stations. In space 30 sec timer, then logout.
2. If timer is aborted or client disconnects, warp away and logout after 1 min - if the ship is not scrambled and not inside a bubble.
2. If ship is scrambled, activate afterburner, booster/repairer and hardeners (might be configurable) and fly straight in one direction/away from the enemy. If no longer scrambled, proceed with 2.
3. If ship gets scrambled while already disconnected, proceed with 3.
4. Aggression timer as usual.

In a nutshell: When logged out, players' ships shouldn't be able to do anything the player couldn't do if logged in. That's the whole reason players log out. So get rid of it.
If the player would've lost his ship regardless of being online of offline, why should he keep it by logging out?
Of course this is all depending on what might or might not be programmable.
But logouts would become a lot less popular, so those algorithms should only cover real disconnects and wouldn't pose great server stress.

Well it's quite late here. So if I missed something, feel free to make constructive comments.

Dumb Bunny
Posted - 2007.01.12 05:31:00 - [29]
 

http://kb.eve-online.com/Pages/KB/Article.aspx?id=104

timers exist

Leneerra
Minmatar
Sebiestor Tribe
Posted - 2007.01.12 11:33:00 - [30]
 

If I would select log out, and get a timer to wait. then I see the following advantages:

- I know what happens while I wait for my ship to dissapear, so I know it will be safe untill I return.
- I can abort logout because I was about to be found, or the importand RL issue resolved itself.
- I can still disconnect and ignore the timer, but loose the piece of mind benefit
- Maybe there are other advantages to a proper disconnect rather than a time out on the connection (use of system resources, routing, congestion, who knows).

So I only see advantages to this part, cannot understand why people would complain about this bit. Stations should of course have no logoff timer.

As to the rest of the points,
A solution for unintended disconnect like this:
If gate cloaked wait till uncloak (max time - random amount to give best average chance)
wait 2 sec while agressable(, scrammable etc) as if played normally
warp away normally if not inside pos shields
If not on pvp timer: logout wait and dissapear as normal on logoff
if on pvp timer: Good luck and happy shopping when next you log in

As to people asking the game to suffer because of their poor connection..
Most of your random disconnects should occur in situations where you are not in any danger, unless you are in danger all the time your connected (sounds a bit odd to me wich such a bad connection).
However everyone is currently suffering because of the lack of a sense of fair play. Even people that hate the log off tactic use it 'because everyone else does'. People seem to be trying to make combat in eve similar to combat in all other mmo's. They just do not want to deal with the consequenses of dieing. While I can understand this behavior, I do not condone it. I prefer to have a few people that have a bad connection to suffer undue loss sometimes rather than everyone in the game suffering all the time.

Eve has (I think) concequences for dieing. That is why I like this game. That is what makes the adrenaline flow in combat. Allowing people to log off like this, well ccp could just as well remove death concequences for everyone, not just the people that cheat (yes that is what I think logging to avoid dieing is).


Pages: [1] 2

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