open All Channels
seplocked Features and Ideas Discussion
blankseplocked Solution To "Log" Tactics
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: 1 [2] 3

Author Topic

S3VYN
Gallente
Imperium Technologies
Posted - 2005.01.21 18:50:00 - [31]
 

Originally by: RollinDutchMasters
Originally by: Schroni
imo, the only thing that needs to be done is:

if you're warp scrambled, and you log off or ctd. your ship doesn't warp out. not after 2 minutes, not after 30, not after a day. end of story...
Yes. This is the only change that needs to be made. I'd suggust that if youre scrambled by NPCs only, the 2 minute timer remain, simply to avoid the mass whining that would ensue otherwise. In PvP, the logoff timer to escape needs to go.

Restricting the ability of people to logoff in 0.0 space is just stupid though. I routinely operate in hostile space, alone. From time to time, I even have to log off EVE to do something else. What you people basically want are changes to the game mechanics to hurt people who are operating in your claimed space, instead of doing something like competent combat operations.



You're wrong. Claimed territory is just that, claimed territory. If you plan on operating in known enemy territory there should be some level of risk on your part instead of a safespot, log, log on an alt and watch the map until it clears up tactic.

If you are operating in known enemy territory which is claimed you are always at risk. You don't think special forces intelligence soldiers are at less risk when they are asleep behind enemy lines do you?

Adding the no disappearing ship when scrambled would only solve part of the problem, which is logging in the middle of a fight. There is also a problem with large fleets being logged off in a system so that they can later all have a synchronized log-on and appear out of nowhere.

Now... consider this.

If you were smart about it and as sneaky as you SHOULD be you could go into enemy territory undetected, park your ship at a safe spot, eject and log off. They would never know you were there if you did it right, chances of someone randomly just scanning the system are small. However, if you WERE detected your ship won't be there when you get back... it isn't a definite kill to anyone operating in enemy territory it just adds a NEEDED element of risk to doing so.

Alternatively, of course, you could pay the fee to the people who "claim" the territory and your ship will disappear in space as it does now, rendering it unfindable and leaving you with the peace of mind that it will be there when you get back.

RollinDutchMasters
Gallente
Ordnance Delivery Services Inc.
Posted - 2005.01.21 21:07:00 - [32]
 

Originally by: S3VYN
You're wrong. Claimed territory is just that, claimed territory. If you plan on operating in known enemy territory there should be some level of risk on your part instead of a safespot, log, log on an alt and watch the map until it clears up tactic.

If you are operating in known enemy territory which is claimed you are always at risk. You don't think special forces intelligence soldiers are at less risk when they are asleep behind enemy lines do you?

Adding the no disappearing ship when scrambled would only solve part of the problem, which is logging in the middle of a fight. There is also a problem with large fleets being logged off in a system so that they can later all have a synchronized log-on and appear out of nowhere.

Now... consider this.

If you were smart about it and as sneaky as you SHOULD be you could go into enemy territory undetected, park your ship at a safe spot, eject and log off. They would never know you were there if you did it right, chances of someone randomly just scanning the system are small. However, if you WERE detected your ship won't be there when you get back... it isn't a definite kill to anyone operating in enemy territory it just adds a NEEDED element of risk to doing so.

Alternatively, of course, you could pay the fee to the people who "claim" the territory and your ship will disappear in space as it does now, rendering it unfindable and leaving you with the peace of mind that it will be there when you get back.
One, I'm assuming you mean real space ownership, like PoS with your alliance name on the map.

Two, penalizing people for logging off outside of a combat situation should never ever happen. Ultimately, EVE is just a game, and sometimes something will unavoidably call you away. Just because you people are too incompetent to deal with whoever is harassing you in your space is no reason to punish the 99.99999% of EVE who may at one time or another actually have something besides EVE to do.

This is a horrible, selfish idea, and it speaks volumes about the competence (or lack thereof) of your alliance to even suggust it.

S3VYN
Gallente
Imperium Technologies
Posted - 2005.01.21 21:36:00 - [33]
 

Yes, it refers to space which is "claimed" by the same calculations currently used to show a "claimed" system on the map.

I don't think it would penalize people from logging off, it would simply provide risk to those people from carrying out operations in enemy territory... which SHOULD be risky.

Currently PVP is only really fun for the attackers, those willing to roam to and fro and without tying themselves to the POS system CCP has implemented. So as it stands the people abiding by game play as CCP has requested we do so (with the Exodus patch) are actually penalized for doing so because there's no differentiation between combat INSIDE your claimed space or OUTSIDE your claimed space. There should be some military benefit to claiming space and working (rather hard, mind you) to maintain it.

Sounds like you are one of the individuals who uses log tactics and are hiding behind all of the pretty standard excuses. Sorry if this idea would ruin your attack tactics. Consider logging off in the system next door. Not that many systems are actually claimed, it wouldn't be difficult or unreasonable for someone to get to a "disputed" system or an "unclaimed" system prior to logging off.

The argument about "what if life calls you away." Tell that to the folks who are penalized for not completing agent missions. Contrary to that argument if you accept a missions and (for whatever reason) can't complete it you are penalized. Same should apply in combat. If you accept the risk of attacking an enemy and can't follow through (for whatever reason) you should assume the appropriate amount of risk for those actions.

RollinDutchMasters
Gallente
Ordnance Delivery Services Inc.
Posted - 2005.01.21 23:10:00 - [34]
 

Originally by: S3VYN
Sounds like you are one of the individuals who uses log tactics and are hiding behind all of the pretty standard excuses. Sorry if this idea would ruin your attack tactics. Consider logging off in the system next door. Not that many systems are actually claimed, it wouldn't be difficult or unreasonable for someone to get to a "disputed" system or an "unclaimed" system prior to logging off.
It sounds to me like I'm someone who wants to do combat without devoting 12 hours a day to EVE. It sounds to me like youre the kind of incompetent combat pilot that I usually prey upon.
Quote:
The argument about "what if life calls you away." Tell that to the folks who are penalized for not completing agent missions. Contrary to that argument if you accept a missions and (for whatever reason) can't complete it you are penalized. Same should apply in combat. If you accept the risk of attacking an enemy and can't follow through (for whatever reason) you should assume the appropriate amount of risk for those actions.
This is officially the worst analogy EVER. Agent missions give you 24 hours to complete, with one exception. Logging off in space and getting ganked by some incompetent blobby carebear alliance gives you absolutely no ability to log on and 'finish'.

Mebbye next you want to compare it to RL navy ships not disappearing, try to break the record that you now hold for most idiotic analogy.

S3VYN
Gallente
Imperium Technologies
Posted - 2005.01.21 23:20:00 - [35]
 

Why are you flaming a game improvement idea? TBH, if you can't figure out how to fly over ONE system and log there instead of the system you are in within a 12 hour period (your time frame, not mine) I don't think the developers should spend too much time accounting for you, as you are far below the competence of your average EVE player. Not that many systems are claimed, not that many will be claimed moving forward (it's simply too much work). So this would only effect you if you were in space that you could have been forewarned (using the map) was enemy territory. Anywhere else in 0.0 space I'm not recommending any changes.

I'm trying to point out a problem with game mechanics that every other MMORPG already addresses. I think there is a (relatively) simple solution and I'm trying to voice that to CCP. I'm not sure why you feel personal attacks are warranted, needed or welcomed.

"Log off" tactics have been a source of complaints as long as I've been playing the game (and that's quite a while). So much so that at one point CCP put a fix in place but then removed it (for technical reasons iirc). I feel that with the newest patch and the ability to "claim" space that another, better than the previous, solution has presented itself.

You don't think so, duly noted, I think your opposition to the idea has been noted by anyone reading the thread to this point. There's no need to insult me, my in-game persona, my skills, my alliance or anything else. This is an OOC board designed to allow people to post and discuss ideas they have for improvement of the game... I think I'm well within my rights with what I have posted and I don't think I am deserving of your insults because of it.

RollinDutchMasters
Gallente
Ordnance Delivery Services Inc.
Posted - 2005.01.21 23:29:00 - [36]
 

Originally by: S3VYN
Why are you flaming a game improvement idea?
One, its not an improvement if its stupid. Two, I'm sorry you dont like getting back the same crap that you spew. Try toning down the hypocracy a bit.
Quote:
"Log off" tactics have been a source of complaints as long as I've been playing the game (and that's quite a while). So much so that at one point CCP put a fix in place but then removed it (for technical reasons iirc). I feel that with the newest patch and the ability to "claim" space that another, better than the previous, solution has presented itself.
The logoff problem is when people log off to escape from an active combat situation. When safespotted, logoffs are how you leave the game to do something else.

S3VYN
Gallente
Imperium Technologies
Posted - 2005.01.22 01:29:00 - [37]
 

Edited by: S3VYN on 22/01/2005 01:33:13
Edited by: S3VYN on 22/01/2005 01:31:00
Er.... Not sure I follow when you say I'm getting back the same crap that I spew...

So far you're the only person I've run into who doesn't think logoff tactics are lame. Unless the cross-section of EVE I've been exposed to is grossly unrepresentative of the general EVE player base that would put you in a heavy minority.

Originally by: RollinDutchMasters
One, its not an improvement if its stupid. Two, I'm sorry you dont like getting back the same crap that you spew. Try toning down the hypocracy a bit.


Your first response doesn't require a response, I don't think...

Originally by: RollinDutchMasters
The logoff problem is when people log off to escape from an active combat situation. When safespotted, logoffs are how you leave the game to do something else.


I'm sure you realize that there is no longer any such thing as "safespots." CCP intentionally removed those and introduced Scanner Probe modules in order to alleviate someone sitting AFK in a safespot for hours on end. It seems a natural progression on that thread of thinking to begin to provide some risk to "logoff" tactics as well.

If someone logs off WITHOUT hitting the [ESC] + [QUIT GAME] sequence my idea outlines that their ship warps to a "safespot." That spot would be like the warp spots are now, findable by using Scanner Probe technology but outside the immediate realm of contact with other objects. It takes a good while (20 minutes is considered quick, usually takes longer) to find someone's ship using scanner probes, that should be plenty of time for someone who was disconnected, CTD'd or whatever to get back online and move their ship.

People logging off during active combat is one of the problems, yes, but it isn't the only problem. The solution I'm providing solves *both* problems I mentioned (which are the two most common I've heard about).

Remember that I'm referring to CLAIMED territory, not all of 0.0 space. So this is ALL assuming that you are operating in KNOWN enemy territory. There would still be plenty of places for people to log without having this idea even effect them.

My research on what people think about this included around 1,000 active players and you're the first to say it is a bad idea, please try saying so in a nicer tone.

RollinDutchMasters
Gallente
Ordnance Delivery Services Inc.
Posted - 2005.01.22 01:42:00 - [38]
 

Originally by: S3VYN
Remember that I'm referring to CLAIMED territory, not all of 0.0 space. So this is ALL assuming that you are operating in KNOWN enemy territory. There would still be plenty of places for people to log without having this idea even effect them.

My research on what people think about this included around 1,000 active players and you're the first to say it is a bad idea, please try saying so in a nicer tone.
Your research can include 10 million idiots and you'll get the same stupidity from all of them.

If I have to log from EVE, I dont want to play a ****ing game of 'oops, cant log here.... oops, cant log here.... oops, cant log here'. I want to find a safespot and hit ****ing escape.

What you want is the game to encourage even MORE blobbing (which the servers simply cannot support) by giving people who outblob their enemy the ability to actually trap them in the game. It is stupid on many levels, the biggest being that you think blobbing 3:1 is a fun an exciting way to fight.

The only thing that this idea does is very definitively reward blobbing, while punishing people who have other commitments.

I'm sorry your alliance sucks. I'm sorry you have to outblob your enemy so much they need to log. I'm sorry that youre whining about that to get CCP to give you a blob4t3hwin cookie. Most of all I'm sorry that youre wasting my time.

S3VYN
Gallente
Imperium Technologies
Posted - 2005.01.22 02:05:00 - [39]
 

Edited by: S3VYN on 22/01/2005 02:05:59
Feel free to go elsewhere. Making the game better for the large groups of people who congregate to play it socially isn't a waste of time, in my book.

Not sure why you feel your opinion outweighs that of 10 million people. But... Yeah, feel free to go elsewhere.

And I'm not clear on why my alliance "sucks" for not being able to keep logged off players from logging back in but you seem absolutely fine admitting that you and yours can't move one system...

Juniper
Posted - 2005.01.22 02:09:00 - [40]
 

S3VYN, didn't you see the sign?

"Don't Feed The Trolls". I know you can't have missed it.

RollinDutchMasters does this kind of thing a lot I've noticed. Ignore him/her, and move on.

S3VYN
Gallente
Imperium Technologies
Posted - 2005.01.22 02:10:00 - [41]
 

Oh... I haven't spent a lot of time on this particular board. D'oh! Troll got me! Embarassed

Thanks for the heads up. Very Happy

RollinDutchMasters
Gallente
Ordnance Delivery Services Inc.
Posted - 2005.01.22 02:20:00 - [42]
 

Originally by: S3VYN
Feel free to go elsewhere. Making the game better for the large groups of people who congregate to play it socially isn't a waste of time, in my book.

Not sure why you feel your opinion outweighs that of 10 million people. But... Yeah, feel free to go elsewhere.

And I'm not clear on why my alliance "sucks" for not being able to keep logged off players from logging back in but you seem absolutely fine admitting that you and yours can't move one system...
Believe me, if CCP makes such an idiotic change which will prevent me from being able to log off EVE when I want, my account will be one of the first out the door. I dont play eve to have a second job, I play it in addition to the one I already have, as well as classes. I can deal with balance changes and idiotic *****ing, but a change to actively prevent me from playing would inspire me to go elsewhere.

Your alliance sucks because every member that I've ever seen sucks. This includes your whining (about RUS kicking the hell out of you) here and now.

"Me and mine", ignoring the fact i fight alone basically 100% of the time, can deal with people logging off to escape me if I cant trap them first. I strongly dislike logging to escape combat, but if you cant get someone warp scrambled, you dont deserve the kill.
Quote:
S3VYN, didn't you see the sign?

"Don't Feed The Trolls". I know you can't have missed it.

RollinDutchMasters does this kind of thing a lot I've noticed. Ignore him/her, and move on.
Who the **** are you? Complain about trolling in the post where you contribute absolutely nothing? Do us both a favor and drink terpentine.

Juniper
Posted - 2005.01.22 02:30:00 - [43]
 

Originally by: S3VYN
I think this change would make sense from every notable perspective of A) intended gameplay; B) fair gameplay and C) storyline relevance.


I think you have a good idea there. The system needs to be changed, because at the moment the situation favours only the cowardly. The only issue I can see is that how do you actually tell if someone has genuinely dropped connection because of a power failure, ISP probs, or other 'external' entity rather than logging off to avoid having their ship destroyed.

That's always been the balancing act. You couldn't just say "Oh, if they press ESC and hit Cancel then they logged off normally and are trying to exploit" - I don't usually log off that way, I click the 'X' at the top right of the screen as I run in windowed mode. Which is exactly the same as killing the task through task manager. Which is exactly the same as my machine blowing up and catching fire in the middle of a battle.

RollinDutchMasters
Gallente
Ordnance Delivery Services Inc.
Posted - 2005.01.22 02:33:00 - [44]
 

Edited by: RollinDutchMasters on 22/01/2005 02:34:19
Originally by: Juniper
I think you have a good idea there. The system needs to be changed, because at the moment the situation favours only the cowardly. The only issue I can see is that how do you actually tell if someone has genuinely dropped connection because of a power failure, ISP probs, or other 'external' entity rather than logging off to avoid having their ship destroyed.

That's always been the balancing act. You couldn't just say "Oh, if they press ESC and hit Cancel then they logged off normally and are trying to exploit" - I don't usually log off that way, I click the 'X' at the top right of the screen as I run in windowed mode. Which is exactly the same as killing the task through task manager. Which is exactly the same as my machine blowing up and catching fire in the middle of a battle.

There is no way to differentiate, and that means that all disconnects need to be treated the same. If one form is given preference, then everyone will simply use that way to log out.

Not that it matters, because EVE is a game. Any game that penalizes you for leaving to do something else is horribly designed, and any game that intentionally adds in a penalty for leaving and doing something else needs to seriously reevaluate priorities.

P.S. Any suggustion that requires active GM intervention from people already overworked needs to be taken out back and mercy-killed.

Zarthanon
Posted - 2005.01.22 02:35:00 - [45]
 

Edited by: Zarthanon on 22/01/2005 02:42:27
Ummm... deleted because I just read through other posts and I repeated just about everything they said... so... ummm... yeah... I agree *SIGNED*

S3VYN
Gallente
Imperium Technologies
Posted - 2005.01.22 03:06:00 - [46]
 

Originally by: Juniper
Originally by: S3VYN
I think this change would make sense from every notable perspective of A) intended gameplay; B) fair gameplay and C) storyline relevance.


I think you have a good idea there. The system needs to be changed, because at the moment the situation favours only the cowardly. The only issue I can see is that how do you actually tell if someone has genuinely dropped connection because of a power failure, ISP probs, or other 'external' entity rather than logging off to avoid having their ship destroyed.

That's always been the balancing act. You couldn't just say "Oh, if they press ESC and hit Cancel then they logged off normally and are trying to exploit" - I don't usually log off that way, I click the 'X' at the top right of the screen as I run in windowed mode. Which is exactly the same as killing the task through task manager. Which is exactly the same as my machine blowing up and catching fire in the middle of a battle.



That's a good point. While I'm not intimitely familiar with the inner workings of the EVE client itself I know that all other software I've ever worked with makes a marked and traceable distinction between user requested shutdown and things like disconnects. I don't claim to know exactly how it would be accomplished but I would venture to say it could, in fact, be distinguished between the two.

This idea, of course, doesn't solve ALL of the logoff tactic issues, but it does narrow them some and may take care of 40% of the petitions that are filed in regards to that.

Funny thing is, some GM's say file petitions while others say not to. I think for the most part "logging off" isn't the problem so much as obviously planned, synchronized log offs AND log ons.

Beta Vixen
Imperial Guardians
Posted - 2005.01.22 15:00:00 - [47]
 

Here's another and perhaps better partial solution; let's add a new deployable class called mines.

If someone logs off, or CTDs, or whatever while within view of anyone else, the server offers the anyone else the opportunity to bookmark that location. Then the hunters can bring in enough mines to make the area unsafe [number depending on the class of ship they saw log off, of course] and emplace them.

When the logged off party returns, his ship autowarps back to within 10km of where he was and the mines then attack immediately. If there are enough of them, his ship is destroyed. If there are way too many, he gets podded in the bargain.

Now we'd have balance ... you can log off if losing a fight and play the when? game, but the winners' assets there [the mines] wait patiently forever to kill you.

**
Sure, this doesn't solve the problem of fleets hiding at a "safespot" and logging off en mass, and it's a first step.

**
As I write this, it occurs to me that the fleet log off problem can be solved by adding server code that exposes such mass log offs [if not supported by known server outages and/or node problems] to predation by npcs. Perhaps a lower threshold of three logged of ships within 100 km radius and 10 minutes should trigger random discovery and attack by the local npcs.

This would let the odd log off caused by a CTD or minor Internet failure be left alone while anything that looks like a fleet action attracts rats who begin eating away at the parked fleet.

**
Griefers beware! Laughing

ArcticFox
The Night Crew
Posted - 2005.01.23 09:13:00 - [48]
 

There seem to be too many problems with disconnects and difficulties associated with this particular solution, though I do agree something needs to be done. I say implement tracking beacons that can be fired at people and latched onto their ships to give people a warp to point (even after they log). This will provide a solution to a lot of logging problems (though admittedly not all of them) without hassling people who are logging in a completely un-combat related way.

Mencar
Posted - 2005.01.23 20:03:00 - [49]
 

Hi galls and boys

Funny to see so many Xetic here are whining about log off tactics. Very funny.

This aside, 'log offers' are really a problem, I admit. I've seen them all to many in my CA days.

Logging of in a system 'claimed' or not should still be possible. you can't expect someone to play 23/7. If you take a fleet deep down, you'll need to get sleep sometime. So thats not really the problem.

To counter log-offs in combat situations, make logging off slooooooooow. Give logging off a cool down period. In this cool down, flag neutral to all NPC's (like a pod for instance) After 1 minute or so, do the warp out and even the cloak for that matter. Thats 1 minute 'sitting duck time'.

Make logging back on slooooow as well. Autowarp back to log off point, flagged neutral to NPC's for 65 seconds. 60 second cool down period before you can use modules again (but still able to warp away, what use are tacklers otherwise).

This means that you can still be in 'hostile territory', make an SS, go to SS and start the log off sequence.

If you crash in empire at a gate or in any astroid belt with npc's, they'll stop shooting you. If you restart, the NPC's will still not shoot you for 65 seconds.

If you logg off or crash in combat, or alone in hostile 0.0 territory, you are toast. Yes, probably even if you crash.
If you don't like this to happen to you, avoid 0.0 and combat. Twisted Evil Plenty of veldspar roids to mine.

This way its still possible to log off in space 'peacefully', but not in combat situations. Should everyone crash because of a node crash, petition your losses to CCP, and hope they have ears for it.Rolling Eyes

Greetz

Mencar

ArcticFox
The Night Crew
Posted - 2005.01.24 00:44:00 - [50]
 

Edited by: ArcticFox on 24/01/2005 00:46:30
Originally by: Mencar
Hi galls and boys

Funny to see so many Xetic here are whining about log off tactics. Very funny.



Lets be honest here Mencar, this isn't a discussion in which there's a point to bringing in factions and who is complaining about what. Logging off is a problem for everyone (yes I know you agree with that), because it's so damn easy and effective. I've seen groups of people in cheap frig gank squads run off and log. It probably didn't even occur to them that those frigs are so cheap it that it's ridiculous to run when you were out for a fight in the first place in them, because logging off is easy and quick and tempting and totally untrackable. Just thought that ought to be responded to.

That aside, I agree. I say implement LONG logoff times, and tracking probes, and scanners at stations (not the parking fee though, because for me that makes no sense). This way if you're on a long trip and under no threat, you can still safespot and log off in an unoccupied system with no worries, but it can no longer be used to run. Hit them from every side and make it no longer a tempting option.

S3VYN
Gallente
Imperium Technologies
Posted - 2005.01.24 22:12:00 - [51]
 

Originally by: ArcticFox
Edited by: ArcticFox on 24/01/2005 00:46:30
Originally by: Mencar
Hi galls and boys

Funny to see so many Xetic here are whining about log off tactics. Very funny.



Lets be honest here Mencar, this isn't a discussion in which there's a point to bringing in factions and who is complaining about what. Logging off is a problem for everyone (yes I know you agree with that), because it's so damn easy and effective. I've seen groups of people in cheap frig gank squads run off and log. It probably didn't even occur to them that those frigs are so cheap it that it's ridiculous to run when you were out for a fight in the first place in them, because logging off is easy and quick and tempting and totally untrackable. Just thought that ought to be responded to.

That aside, I agree. I say implement LONG logoff times, and tracking probes, and scanners at stations (not the parking fee though, because for me that makes no sense). This way if you're on a long trip and under no threat, you can still safespot and log off in an unoccupied system with no worries, but it can no longer be used to run. Hit them from every side and make it no longer a tempting option.


I was thinking the "logoff" fee would serve as a way for alliance to charge people they were neutral with to log off in claimed territory kind of like paying to park your vehicle in a parking garage.

I would think that enemies would simply be unable to log their ship off in those area. Note that there's NOTHING in place to keep them from stopping playing the game, only that they have to eject from their ship to do so (thereby leaving their ship to be found).

The thing about that is, if the system is unpopulated they can sneak in, safespot, eject and log off and no one is the wiser. So it would be completely possible to still be sneaky the only difference is that the ship they brought stays in space.

Alternatively, a friendly or neutral could log off their ship (making it disappear as it does now) for a fee, which would go to fund the POS or the station that is claiming the system.

Knowing that, do you still think that is a poor approach?

Etoile Chercheur
Gallente
Phoenix Propulsion Labs
Firmus Ixion
Posted - 2005.01.25 06:33:00 - [52]
 

the ability for entire fleets to vanish completely just by logging out is a problem.

personally, i like the ideas suggesting that a distinction be made between combat with npcs and combat with players. if a player is attacked by npcs and logs out or CTDs, his ship should vanish after the two minute timer has run out, just as it does now. this is entirely reasonable. if a player is in combat with players, his log out timer should be increased to thirty minutes, plenty of time for his attackers to find him if necessary and make the kill.

despite RDM's completely inexusable abuse, i agree with certain points the player made. if i'm flying around in your space (or anywhere for that matter), and decide i need to log out (shut down my ship's systems), i should be able to do so in complete safety. however, if you've managed to get a lock and fire at me, even just once, my ship should take much longer to "shut down" as it is in combat mode. if you've managed to warp scramble me, my ship should stay exactly where it is for the full thirty minutes, completely vulnerable to attack.

again, if i have successfully avoided combat with players completely, i should be able to just log out normally.

under this sort of change, warp scrambled ships would be comitted to battle, regardless of whether their players remained logged in or not. if someone geniunely CTDs and looses their ship and pod because of this, tough. bad luck, that's all. but if they weren't warp scrambled, their ship would warp away, but not vanish for a full thirty minutes, giving the opposing combatants time to find the ship.

Phyre
Caldari Provisions
Posted - 2005.01.25 13:13:00 - [53]
 

This is an easy fix, actually.

You can log off, fine. If you come back within 10 minutes, you'll do the standard warp-back-to-where-you-were deal. This should cover disconnects, power glitches, relogs, CTD's, etc.

If you wait more than 10 minutes, then you will automatically warp to a pre-set point in space, such as the zenith of the sun in each system for example. This way, if you wanted to try your log off tactic and log back in later en force to fight again, you just might find someone camping your warp-in point.

And just to make things interesting, CCP could make it a dead space area with a permament warp destabalizing field, rofl. Doubt that would happen, but hey... who knows. With all the crazy sh*t ccp is doing to ships lately, we just might find outselves having MicroJump Drives on frigates next month.

Heliodor Mordureau
Caldari
Black Nova Corp
Band of Brothers
Posted - 2005.01.25 18:00:00 - [54]
 

Then main problem is not the log off part, it is the log back in part.

What RollingDutchMaster is saying, or at least what I think he is saying is that you should not be penalized for logging off.

What SVYVN is saying is that log off/log on tactics should be penalized.

What should happen is that if you log in after 15 mins, it takes 15 secs for your engines to come online, 30 secs for your modules to come online and 1 minute for your weapons to come online, unless you are docked in a station. this will get rid of most of the garbage log on log off stuff and make it reasonable in a game sense.

RollinDutchMasters
Gallente
Ordnance Delivery Services Inc.
Posted - 2005.01.25 19:24:00 - [55]
 

Edited by: RollinDutchMasters on 25/01/2005 19:24:12
Originally by: Heliodor Mordureau
What should happen is that if you log in after 15 mins, it takes 15 secs for your engines to come online, 30 secs for your modules to come online and 1 minute for your weapons to come online, unless you are docked in a station. this will get rid of most of the garbage log on log off stuff and make it reasonable in a game sense.
That would be a fine idea. I have no problems with having a sensor calibration timer after logon, like cloaked ships have, just so long as it goes away if someone attacks you. I do have a problem with logging off outside of a combat situation, and then logging in to find myself in a station, minus one ship and clone.

S3VYN
Gallente
Imperium Technologies
Posted - 2005.01.25 21:43:00 - [56]
 

Someone was describing to me in great detail what happened in a game called "Jumpgate" which had a similar problem they had to address. I thought it was a pretty good idea, but I saw a small loophole for abuse (or maybe a feature, depending on how you looked at it).

Basically, the idea as I understood it was:
1. If you are in combat and you log off your ship sits there and takes what you've earned it (I think everyone is pretty on board with this idea, even RDM).

2. If you logged off deep in outer realm territory and didn't log back on within a certain period when you did get back around to logging on you would be in the last station you docked in.


Now I see room for screwing around with number 2. Take a hauler 40 jumps into deep 0.0, pick up a load of mins and log it. Leave it for the predetermined time and log back on, back in your home station with your minerals in tow. Shocked


So, I think we've agreed to a solution to the "log off" tactic where people leave during combat. Now we need a concensus on a solution to the "log on" tactic where entire fleets log on to attack in unison in enemy territory.

Is my original idea tweakable to make that work? (the one where people are required to eject from their ship before logging ONLY while in claimed enemy territory)

Lorth
Sniggerdly
Pandemic Legion
Posted - 2005.01.26 20:51:00 - [57]
 

No this is a very bad idea....

First how do you deal with real disconects? Or even people simply pulling the plug? Are they left to die?

What happens if someone doesn't have the isk to pay the price? Do they just sit there? What if I just keep all my isk on an alt?

Its an absolutly horrible idea. It would result in alliences dropping POS's in every system simply to have easy ganks. Not to mention we all know that the log off price would be always set to the what ever max ccp decieds to use.

This stems from a non-pvp allience who needs to blob every single frig that comes into thier teritory. You bring 20 ships vs a rifter and what do you honestly expect? So they log, big deal, next time bring something that they will fight and not the whole allience chat.

I should not be punished for an alliences incompetance at catching me in thier own territory. If the 100 allience mates can't catch an intruder before he can safe spot and log then thats the way it goes.

I have no problem with an enemy loggin off when he's faced with odds he can't possibly win against. If your ****ed about intruders not fighting you then don't bring 20:1 odds. Or if you can't scramble him or set up bubbles or other wise not lock him down then learn some better tactics.

S3VYN
Gallente
Imperium Technologies
Posted - 2005.01.27 05:08:00 - [58]
 

Originally by: Lorth
No this is a very bad idea....

First how do you deal with real disconects? Or even people simply pulling the plug? Are they left to die?

What happens if someone doesn't have the isk to pay the price? Do they just sit there? What if I just keep all my isk on an alt?

Its an absolutly horrible idea. It would result in alliences dropping POS's in every system simply to have easy ganks. Not to mention we all know that the log off price would be always set to the what ever max ccp decieds to use.

This stems from a non-pvp allience who needs to blob every single frig that comes into thier teritory. You bring 20 ships vs a rifter and what do you honestly expect? So they log, big deal, next time bring something that they will fight and not the whole allience chat.

I should not be punished for an alliences incompetance at catching me in thier own territory. If the 100 allience mates can't catch an intruder before he can safe spot and log then thats the way it goes.

I have no problem with an enemy loggin off when he's faced with odds he can't possibly win against. If your ****ed about intruders not fighting you then don't bring 20:1 odds. Or if you can't scramble him or set up bubbles or other wise not lock him down then learn some better tactics.



Or... if you can't win against 20:1 odds perhaps YOU are the one out of place... I mean, if you can't win the fight don't start it.

See, you're willing to punish the (admitted by you) majority in order to concede comfort to the minority (ie should we be concerned about 100 pilots who want this or the 1 who doesn't in your scenario). It's worth remembering that CCP intentionally makes this game fairly difficult to have a go at alone. It's a social game too, not a combat sim.

There has been good discussion in the thread about the "real" problems such as network disconnects. The gist of it was that the ship would act as it does now and warp out, but wouldn't disappear. It takes 20+ minutes to find a ship that warped out using probes, etc, so that should be plenty of time for anyone who got "really" disconnected or whatever to get reconnected and pilot their ship to safety. Of course if they lost their ship because they couldn't get back in for 25 minutes instead of 20... well they shouldn't have risked it in enemy territory.

If someone can't afford the fee they can eject from their ship and log off for free whereas the action would be just as it does now (in that if you eject and log your pod warps safely away and leaves your ship in harm's way). However, their ship stays in space at their "safe" spot. Note that if no one saw them enter the system or saw them while they were there then no one would be looking for their ship (likely). But if someone DID see them their ship would be open territory for anyone adept at using scan probes.

So what, exactly, would be the downside from a gameplay perspective if alliances were putting up POS's in a ton of systems? Isn't that why CCP introduced them in the first place and allowed you to use them to "claim" space?

A POS is an ENORMOUS amount of work. And don't forget, if your corp or alliance wanted to log for free in that system they only have to put equal effort into claiming it (match POS for POS to make the system neutral again). But it makes sense, at least to me, to give corporations and alliances who put so much effort into "claiming" a system an advantage in defending that system.

I'm rehashing stuff already mentioned elsewhere in this post... but it's good info and I'm hoping as a group we can at least get CCP's attention on the matter.

Dimitri
Posted - 2005.01.27 19:01:00 - [59]
 

Bare with me, I can't hold my tounge anymore...
After reading through the forum, I'd like to add my 2 isk to the growing mound. To me it looks like two very seperate and distinct ways to use "log tactics" I don't think a single solution would be able to address both problems well without causing alot of grief for inadvertant disconnections. Just to be certain we're all on the same page, I'll outline the probs specifially as they have affected me. Then I'm open for suggestion on offered fixes.
(1) Peeps mass ships, a few at a time, to a SS near a POS, then log. Later, when a scout has checked the area to make sure there is minimal resistance. everyone logs in at the same time and hits the underdefended POS.
(possible fix) queue logins for avatars in sub .5 systems. This would be easy to implement on the server side. In sub .5 systems, put a 1-5 min gap between avatar logins in space. Stations wouldn't need the queue, nor would space in .5 plus space. corps would be alot more hesatant to use this tactic if they knew they'd have their ships hanging out at the safespot while they wait for their fleet to log in. the time it would take to have a full fleet materialize in space would cut down on this shady tactic. at the same time people who suffer cdt or server disconnect would pop right back on in most systems when they log back in because they aren't trying to coordinate a mass login for shady purposes.... one sec I'll outline the second one after I smoke :)

Dimitri
Posted - 2005.01.27 19:35:00 - [60]
 

kk, back, sorry for the spelling above...
(2)Raiders have been using Log tactics for quite a while now to blow through systems and interrupt mining ops, call me a carebear if you want, but I find a real problem with peeps that have been playing since beta jumping into an interceptor, running out to belts to pop barges and indys, then logging off before the barge escorts can even get in range to do their jobs. I can understand the 20:1 odds, and needing to log when you're about to be jumped, but starting a fight by popping miners or haulers, then logging because all of a sudden, they've managed to lock down the system to try to catch you is pretty lame IMHO. If your game enough to pop escorted haulers and run, you should be sport enough to put up with a little cat and mouse. I think the easiest way to manage this would be for devs to set a 20 minute wait on hostile avatars ships before the server drops them wether they are ingame or not. If player logs or is dropped, after showing aggro to a PC or NPC, ship is (barring any jamming or scrambling) warped away from area, but still in space and attackable. Probes come to mind for finding the peeps who hit and log. Just to be nice to the cheeseheads who use these tactics, devs could make it so that players who become disconnected during aggro sessions cannot be podded, just removed from their ships. I can understand the thrill of running through mining ops and making a kill right in the face of the BS that's asleep at the wheel, but I think peeps have crossed the line when they use logging as a solution for getting out of that particular situation they've gotten themselves into. Be like a boxer popping his opponent in the head then jumpin outta the ring, I think there should be restrictions against that kinda thing. (in case you were wondering, that analogy was for dutch master :P )


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