open All Channels
seplocked Assembly Hall
blankseplocked Exploit - Multiple Log off and On during Emergancy Warp.
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: 1 2 [3]

Author Topic

Tara Vaio
Posted - 2009.09.13 17:22:00 - [61]
 

Indeed, this is seriously lame

Stacy's Mom
Posted - 2009.09.13 17:24:00 - [62]
 

I seriously don't think that the game was designed to alow this :\

Kita Radeon
Gallente
Imminent Ruin

Posted - 2009.09.13 17:26:00 - [63]
 

Yeah, I can't tell you how frustrating it was to lose out on even the chance of titan killing due to this ****.

RedSplat
Posted - 2009.09.13 17:50:00 - [64]
 

Read this

http://wiki.eveonline.com/wiki/Fix_To_Loggoffski

Maekor Stormborn
BURN EDEN
Northern Coalition.
Posted - 2009.09.14 12:56:00 - [65]
 


Ralian Gelain
Gallente
Best Path Inc.
Cascade Imminent
Posted - 2009.09.14 22:21:00 - [66]
 

Edited by: Ralian Gelain on 14/09/2009 22:55:14

Noskill McCheese
Minmatar
Posted - 2009.09.14 22:39:00 - [67]
 

Hey not that I'm a rule*** or e-rat but someone will probably report you for posting gm correspondence.

Oh and fix logoffski

Ralian Gelain
Gallente
Best Path Inc.
Cascade Imminent
Posted - 2009.09.14 22:58:00 - [68]
 

Thanks for the warning.. Wasn't aware of that one.

Maaxeru
Posted - 2009.09.15 00:53:00 - [69]
 

Without going into the pros and cons of the logoffski thing, this argument brings up a valid side note and potential solution:

Let Supercaps dock. And take out the e-warp mechanics for all ships.

Some of you are going to cry foul on the supercap docking thing I know, but think about it. You can have an unlimited number or dreads, carriers, freighters etc dock in the same station and no problem. While supercaps (titans especially) are the size of a dozen or so dreads, nothing stops a 50-ship strong cap fleet from docking at once. There are even modules already in game that can store supercaps.

So my suggestion: Allow all stations a certain amount of space for ships to dock. Make that number big enough that one or two supercaps can dock (though presumably to the exclusion of space for many other ships in that station). And allow, as CCP is apparently considering, multiple stations in 0.0 space systems.

You could still camp the station hosting the titan of course. It might allow the supercap pilot more time to wait you out, but it would also stop a number of e-warp abuses.

Triiniity
Super Batungwaa Ninja Warriors
Posted - 2009.09.15 10:01:00 - [70]
 

Originally by: Ralian Gelain
Thanks for the warning.. Wasn't aware of that one.


lol lies; the titan's alt even posted in local afterward about how happy he was for messing up our day by exploiting and getting the titan out "happy camping"

Tjarish
Super Batungwaa Ninja Warriors
0ccupational Hazzard
Posted - 2009.09.15 11:48:00 - [71]
 

As for the "scan them down" thing, you have 30 seconds to scan them down before they login again and repeat the process. Generally they are not agressed so they disappear after 30 seconds

irion felpamy
Minmatar
Assisted Genocide
Unprovoked Aggression
Posted - 2009.09.15 12:37:00 - [72]
 

Support it is abused to much, players can't have nice things.

Cheekything
Gallente
Black Lance
Posted - 2009.09.15 16:22:00 - [73]
 

Originally by: Maaxeru
Without going into the pros and cons of the logoffski thing, this argument brings up a valid side note and potential solution:

Let Supercaps dock. And take out the e-warp mechanics for all ships.

Some of you are going to cry foul on the supercap docking thing I know, but think about it. You can have an unlimited number or dreads, carriers, freighters etc dock in the same station and no problem. While supercaps (titans especially) are the size of a dozen or so dreads, nothing stops a 50-ship strong cap fleet from docking at once. There are even modules already in game that can store supercaps.

So my suggestion: Allow all stations a certain amount of space for ships to dock. Make that number big enough that one or two supercaps can dock (though presumably to the exclusion of space for many other ships in that station). And allow, as CCP is apparently considering, multiple stations in 0.0 space systems.

You could still camp the station hosting the titan of course. It might allow the supercap pilot more time to wait you out, but it would also stop a number of e-warp abuses.


This is barely related and they can dock you just need a capital SMA, you just shouldn't have Super Caps if you can't hide them in a sov 4 death star.

Nidhiesk
Posted - 2009.09.15 17:07:00 - [74]
 

curiously, is the logoffski used more when someone is escaping someone (hunting) or when a guy gets in a system and theres a gaycamp.. I mean gatecamp ? Laughing

Jason Edwards
Internet Tough Guy
Spreadsheets Online
Posted - 2009.09.15 18:00:00 - [75]
 

Originally by: Herschel Yamamoto
The first time I heard about this mechanic, it was from a guy talking about how he killed the guy anyways. Any idiot with a scan probe launcher can find the person trivially, since you know he's within a million or two km of where you saw him last. This doesn't seem like a problem to me - it's a tactic more interesting than it is powerful. I like it, personally.

Ok here's the problem. It is extremely easy to catch some sure... but how often do you have that scan probe launcher ready? On top of that... you find the person... you warp ur team on them. You have what? 2mins to kill em? It's very short. The person logging off has to log off with agression in order to get the full 15mins.

On top of that... lets now say they are a freighter. 2mins to kill a freighter is fairly long.

Pretty sure Darknesss' current nyx survived using logoffski. I have an old vid of Tyraxx thork's aeon logoffski; pretty sure anyway?

Frankly. The system leads to less destruction of ships. As a carebear who profits from destruction of ships. I dislike this.

Cheekything
Gallente
Black Lance
Posted - 2009.09.16 10:54:00 - [76]
 

Edited by: Cheekything on 16/09/2009 14:35:30
Originally by: Jason Edwards


On top of that... lets now say they are a freighter. 2mins to kill a freighter is fairly long.



Actually it's 30 seconds and the problem is those 30 seconds you are invulnerable due to the nature of the abuse.

Gehnster
Gallente
RED SUN RISING
Posted - 2009.09.16 20:11:00 - [77]
 

Originally by: RedSplat
Read this

http://wiki.eveonline.com/wiki/Fix_To_Loggoffski


That solution solves no problem, lol. It just makes their new warp point take longer to make. Plus you don't need a new solution the emergency warp is designed great, it's just bugged. We need to make that distinction people. I feel that emergency warp is there for really when the player is logging back in. For the people with the slower connections they won't be having their ship appear in space before they can control it. The emergency warp gives you time to log back in while your ship is already "known" to the server.

The bug is a new destination is created if you log out during the emergency warp. The solution would be to check "was this person in emergency warp when he logged out? if so, don't change destination, else change destination point.

Blastil
Posted - 2009.09.17 14:57:00 - [78]
 

Originally by: Maaxeru
Without going into the pros and cons of the logoffski thing, this argument brings up a valid side note and potential solution:

Let Supercaps dock. And take out the e-warp mechanics for all ships.

Some of you are going to cry foul on the supercap docking thing I know, but think about it. You can have an unlimited number or dreads, carriers, freighters etc dock in the same station and no problem. While supercaps (titans especially) are the size of a dozen or so dreads, nothing stops a 50-ship strong cap fleet from docking at once. There are even modules already in game that can store supercaps.

So my suggestion: Allow all stations a certain amount of space for ships to dock. Make that number big enough that one or two supercaps can dock (though presumably to the exclusion of space for many other ships in that station). And allow, as CCP is apparently considering, multiple stations in 0.0 space systems.

You could still camp the station hosting the titan of course. It might allow the supercap pilot more time to wait you out, but it would also stop a number of e-warp abuses.


Supercaps should be a major risk. Eve always has had a risk vs reward system, and the risk of a super cap is that it can be camped into its home starbase, that starbase could run out of fuel, or could be destroyed. Making a supercap dockyard strikes me as removing the risk from an inherently risky 60 bil investment.

ED has weaseled their last titan out of danger. Fix this now CCP. and also, move an Avatar and an Erebus into CL-1 planet 5 moon 12 and make sure it has no fuel in its fuel bay and can't move.

and is officer fitted. screw you ED for being ****s and not taking your titan losses like men.

Lusulpher
Gallente
Posted - 2009.09.21 05:10:00 - [79]
 

Edited by: Lusulpher on 21/09/2009 05:13:18
Originally by: Tjarish
As for the "scan them down" thing, you have 30 seconds to scan them down before they login again and repeat the process. Generally they are not agressed so they disappear after 30 seconds


Whoa, they are deagressed, if they log/DC and get time to think about dying, fine, as long as they didn't fire on/kill you they should not be scannable or scrammable. But hit them with stacking time penalties for multiple intel relog.

If they aggressed, ship scannable for 15mins, no invincibility. PERIOD. They chalk that dc up as a loss IF the enemy brought probes. IF they don't relog in 15, they don't get to relog for an hour, they need to fix their connection anyway.

Relog, relog, relog, SAFETY , that's an exploit.Shocked

Support for relog fix. Which is simply, make sure E-warp 1 has to complete before E-warp 2. No hop-scotching through space while seeing enemy force and being invulnerable.

Dirty Wizard
Posted - 2009.09.21 10:54:00 - [80]
 

Originally by: Cheekything
Hard code the coordinates of the log off location and until the player reaches that location via the re-entry warp (which should also still be in effect even if the player logs off again) should only warp into that location.
I fully support this idea. All other alternative idea posters in this thread can shove it.

Ancy Denaries

Posted - 2009.09.21 13:16:00 - [81]
 

Logoffski needs to be tended to. A ship that disconnects in ANY way should:

1. Be scrammable and NOT ignore scrams (as they sometimes do when logoffski during gate-cloak)
2. Not disappear from space IF they are agressed (ie you are being scrammed or shot at)
3. Warp to a safespot 1 mil Km away and NOWHERE ELSE regardless of amounts of login/logouts and ALWAYS warp back to the exact same spot they left if you log back in (even if you instantly log out again. You simply land in your original location and then the game initiates a new emergency warp, with align and all that jazz).


This would lead to that a logoffski that is agressed is screwed regardless. A logoffski that does get away has no way of warping to several spots. A logffski that logs off and on and off in order to make a new warp will find himself back at the origin point (pirates or whatever) before doing another align and warp.

That would solve it for logoffskis without hurting people that legitimately disconnect or log off in space for the end of a gaming session.

Thoughts?

Murrior
Amarr
Thundercats
B O R G
Posted - 2009.09.21 15:21:00 - [82]
 

2 things, first its a bit hypocritical to raise this as an issue just because you missed your titan kills, and second what happens when you've logged off in a pos in 0.0, and due to rl stuff/whatever you log back on after 2-3 days and the friendly POS has being replaced with a hostile pos? How in any way is it "fair" to the person who logs back on to not be able of taking any other action but being warped to the spot he logged off? The warp-to-safe and disappear exists since this is a game and people should (and/or) have a life outside of it.


Cheekything
Gallente
Black Lance
Posted - 2009.09.21 23:11:00 - [83]
 

Originally by: Murrior
stuff



Erm if you'd taken the time to read the thread you'd understand the fact that this is an exploit as it makes your ship immortal, so firstly we didn't miss the titan kills we denied them by a flaw within the games design.

Secondly if you log off in a 1-2 Bill "destroyable" POS in space while in a 70 bill ship your an idiot, any decent titan pilot has a) alot of friends, b) sov 4 c) warps to an off grid 300+au safe to log off.

Eve is not fair it is cruel get over it, 2 titans should of died but they didn't because they choose to start use an exploit that they know is a "Grey Area" with CCP, thus will do nothing.

Hence forth we are trying give them an easy programming solution that will fix the problem so that logging off wont make you teleport around while being immortal.

So I understand that being moronic may fall hand in hand with people who sympathise with blatant cheaters, however all I've asked for is reasonable why make a big deal against it hmm?

Duchess Starbuckington
Posted - 2009.09.21 23:21:00 - [84]
 

Supported. This should've been called an exploit long ago.

Cheekything
Gallente
Black Lance
Posted - 2009.09.25 02:11:00 - [85]
 

Bump for great justice!

SirxAmoc
Senex Legio
Posted - 2009.09.25 16:53:00 - [86]
 

Some players will do a log off to keep from getting killed that is just a factor. But a good hunting crew can normally find these guys and kill them anyway if they persist in playing.

But if you limit this then should those that like to use the log off trap be penalized also? If you log off to surprise someone then shouldn't your ship not be able to lock a target for at least 5 minutes?

Oh and if your cable company just happens to interrupt your service because numb nuts down the street got caught pirating cable and they are having to fix his mess and you just happen to be in your Dread getting ready to cyno and now you dont know what happened. So then is that fair?

Cheekything
Gallente
Black Lance
Posted - 2009.09.26 15:53:00 - [87]
 

Originally by: SirxAmoc
Some players will do a log off to keep from getting killed that is just a factor. But a good hunting crew can normally find these guys and kill them anyway if they persist in playing.

But if you limit this then should those that like to use the log off trap be penalized also? If you log off to surprise someone then shouldn't your ship not be able to lock a target for at least 5 minutes?

Oh and if your cable company just happens to interrupt your service because numb nuts down the street got caught pirating cable and they are having to fix his mess and you just happen to be in your Dread getting ready to cyno and now you dont know what happened. So then is that fair?


Your points are valid but your misunderstanding like many that this may effect players with a bad internet connection.

This is entirely about people who exploit a game mechinic that allows them to cheat their way out of their ships destruction.

Also CCP does not reimburse you because your internet is crappy... trust me I've tried once or twice.

Tatiana Valenko
Posted - 2009.10.01 22:47:00 - [88]
 



Pages: 1 2 [3]

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