These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

EVE General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Aggression/Log off issues
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
non judgement
Without Fear
Flying Burning Ships Alliance
#61 - 2011-09-30 03:16:39 UTC
Tarsas Phage wrote:
Jita Alt666 wrote:
logs he will pause to assess his options... ...you have to de-cloak him in that time to initiate aggression... ...this is possible... ...if you fail to de cloak him and he logs then normal log out mechanics apply...

Learn to read.


I haven't trudged through this entire thread to see if anyone has corrected you, but you may like to know that you cannot force a decloak on someone who has gate cloak.

You can be 2 meters from them when they jump in and are holding cloak... hell, you could even pass right through him... and they will not be decloaked by your close proximity. Decloaking only works for when a cloaking device is in use.

Learn to EVE.


That sounds impossible... I don't think you can pass through other people. I'd like to see someone test that idea.
You might not be able to decloak them but passing through them?
I don't think so.
Hobogear
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#62 - 2011-09-30 03:23:49 UTC
You know we are talking about taking away 20 seconds or so of not getting aggression. Its not game changing for anyone other than the people who are chickens with their ships and log off. Its not just JF that log off to save their ships.

Blaming the aggressors is so ass backwards i dont even know where to begin. Just goes to show how much the eve player has changed in 8 years. Kind of suprised you lame asses havent gotten pvp in general banned.
non judgement
Without Fear
Flying Burning Ships Alliance
#63 - 2011-09-30 03:26:00 UTC
Hobogear wrote:
You know we are talking about taking away 20 seconds or so of not getting aggression. Its not game changing for anyone other than the people who are chickens with their ships and log off. Its not just JF that log off to save their ships.

Blaming the aggressors is so ass backwards i dont even know where to begin. Just goes to show how much the eve player has changed in 8 years. Kind of suprised you lame asses havent gotten pvp in general banned.


You were blobed on the forums and don't like the pvp in the forums either?
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#64 - 2011-09-30 03:29:03 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Hobogear wrote:
You know we are talking about taking away 20 seconds or so of not getting aggression.
Not quite. We're actually talking about getting aggression when you're not in the game…
Quote:
Just goes to show how much the eve player has changed in 8 years. Kind of suprised you lame asses havent gotten pvp in general banned.
…once more implying that this is any way a new thing.
Psymn wrote:
Dont worry about tippia, as usual she has a massive amount to say on subjects that she has no experience on.
And yet, for all that supposed inexperience, I somehow know the facts and mechanics better than those who presume to have more experience. So the question is: does that claim of inexperience hold water and/or are those other guys just slow learners?
Hobogear
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#65 - 2011-09-30 03:32:41 UTC
non judgement wrote:
Hobogear wrote:
You know we are talking about taking away 20 seconds or so of not getting aggression. Its not game changing for anyone other than the people who are chickens with their ships and log off. Its not just JF that log off to save their ships.

Blaming the aggressors is so ass backwards i dont even know where to begin. Just goes to show how much the eve player has changed in 8 years. Kind of suprised you lame asses havent gotten pvp in general banned.


You were blobed on the forums and don't like the pvp in the forums either?



This is about making the game better.

Post why this change wouldnt make the game better.

Pros
1. People cannot log off to avoid death.

2. People getting booted from corp while in isnt a big deal if #1 is done. But still think that shouldnt happen.


Cons
1. The 1 pilot that legitimately crashes when jumping to a system with a red gate camp dies. Even though had he sayed online he could have died anyways.

2. CCP has to handle booting pilots from petitions if they wont leave their corp or dock.
Tarsas Phage
Sniggerdly
#66 - 2011-09-30 03:34:42 UTC
non judgement wrote:
Tarsas Phage wrote:
Jita Alt666 wrote:
logs he will pause to assess his options... ...you have to de-cloak him in that time to initiate aggression... ...this is possible... ...if you fail to de cloak him and he logs then normal log out mechanics apply...

Learn to read.


I haven't trudged through this entire thread to see if anyone has corrected you, but you may like to know that you cannot force a decloak on someone who has gate cloak.

You can be 2 meters from them when they jump in and are holding cloak... hell, you could even pass right through him... and they will not be decloaked by your close proximity. Decloaking only works for when a cloaking device is in use.

Learn to EVE.


That sounds impossible... I don't think you can pass through other people. I'd like to see someone test that idea.
You might not be able to decloak them but passing through them?
I don't think so.


Gate cloak is one of the few fail-safe mechanics which exist in EVE. I emphasize "gate cloak" so that readers are sure to make that distinction. When you jump into a new system via gate or wormhole, you are guaranteed 1 minute of this invulnerability-inducing gate cloak, or until you move your ship ("breaking gate cloak"), whichever comes first. During this time it's like your ship is there, but it's also not. You cannot be decloaked, and you cannot be bumped.

You ever try to bump someone off a station right after they undock? Same thing. Until they do something like direct their ship or turn on a module, they have 30 seconds of session change (invulnerability) before they can be bumpable (or targetable)... otherwise, your ship will pass right through them. Gate cloak essentially combines that with being invisible, and it lasts for 1 minute.
Martinez
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#67 - 2011-09-30 03:34:43 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Hobogear wrote:
You know we are talking about taking away 20 seconds or so of not getting aggression.
Not quite. We're actually talking about getting aggression when you're not in the game…
Quote:
Just goes to show how much the eve player has changed in 8 years. Kind of suprised you lame asses havent gotten pvp in general banned.
…once more implying that this is any way a new thing.
Psymn wrote:
Dont worry about tippia, as usual she has a massive amount to say on subjects that she has no experience on.
And yet, for all that supposed inexperience, I somehow know the facts and mechanics better than those who presume to have more experience. So the question is: does that claim of inexperience hold water and/or are those other guys just slow learners?



Pilot should have logged at a safe, pos, or station.


No its not a new thing by any means. Its a old problem that needs to be fixed.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#68 - 2011-09-30 03:39:07 UTC
Martinez wrote:
No its not a new thing by any means. Its a old problem that needs to be fixed.
It's an old fix that people still see as a problem for some reason (even though plenty of counter-tactics have evolved over the years).
The Apostle
Doomheim
#69 - 2011-09-30 03:41:28 UTC  |  Edited by: The Apostle
Quote:
Its not game changing for anyone other than the people who are chickens with their ships and log off.

No but it's game changing if you think that CCP will act on your behalf and change the rules. Is that what you're hoping?

Seriously, why are you "PvPing" in high-sec anyway?

Aren't you using game mechanics to apply force to unarmed vessels in EMPIRE space who clearly do not want (or more accurately - ARE UNABLE) to fight you? They used a brain and avoid a lame empire wardec? Pfft....

In my experience - ALL empire PvPers use the following game mechanics....

They DO NOT stay in a PvP engagement if out of ammo/cap/armor/hull. (Why? Chicken?)
They DO run if ougunned. (Why? Chicken?)
They DO utilise neut reps. (Why? Chicken?)
They DO play dock/undock station games. (Why? Chicken?)
They DO use the gate aggro mechanic to avoid/bait WT's. (Why? Chicken?)
They DO use non-corp alts for scouts. (Why? Chicken?)
They DO use non-corp alts or alt corps for supply/logistics. (Why? Chicken?)

C'mon, grow a pair and go play with the real boys. All your wishes for gudfites will come true.

[i]Take an aspirin. If pain persists consult your local priest. WTB: An Austrian kangaroo![/i]
Martinez
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#70 - 2011-09-30 03:42:14 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Martinez wrote:
No its not a new thing by any means. Its a old problem that needs to be fixed.
It's an old fix that people still see as a problem for some reason (even though plenty of counter-tactics have evolved over the years).



Other than bring more what is a counter tactic to a person logging off to not die.

I like how you avoided commenting on the pilot should have logged in a safe, pos, or station. Nice one dodge the common sense.
Tarsas Phage
Sniggerdly
#71 - 2011-09-30 03:43:15 UTC  |  Edited by: Tarsas Phage
non judgement wrote:
Talk about a crying baby.

Awwww no one will be able to see how cool you are cause you didn't get that jf kill.
Its a tactic that has been used for ages.

Even nullsec alliance fc's use it.

The term carebear should apply to highsec wardec people who cry about tactics that stop them from shooting defenceless ships.


Oh please, what color is the sky in your universe? Ok, I won't delve into ad hominem-filled tirade... but...

Throughout history of RL war, any nation that was successful in prosecuting a war against another placed transport and supply infrastructure at the top of their list of priorities... from destroying (defenseless) cargo ships and their ports of call, to (defenseless) trains and the bridges they crossed, these were all considered essential targets, the damage to which would hurt the enemy not only in terms of lost materiel, but also financially. War isn't solely about pew'ing between dedicated combatants.

So, taking this back to EVE, and the topic of the oft-debated logoffski (and subsequent corp dropski), these are clearly attempts to, in CCP's own words, "avoid combat", moreover, it's about avoiding consequences and risks in a game whose players often quip and stress the elements of risk. As for haulers or anything without a gun: In EVE, there is no Geneva Convention, thus there are no Hors de Combat, much to the chagrin of people such as yourself, I'm sure.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#72 - 2011-09-30 03:44:42 UTC
Martinez wrote:
Other than bring more what is a counter tactic to a person logging off to not die.
Funnily enough, logging off… Twisted
Quote:
I like how you avoided commenting on the pilot should have logged in a safe, pos, or station.
Why would I comment on it? It had nothing to do with my post.
Martinez
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#73 - 2011-09-30 03:50:08 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Martinez wrote:
Other than bring more what is a counter tactic to a person logging off to not die.
Funnily enough, logging off… Twisted
Quote:
I like how you avoided commenting on the pilot should have logged in a safe, pos, or station.
Why would I comment on it? It had nothing to do with my post.



So you think logging off will get my war target not to log off? I guess you are right, but it will also allow my war target to fly safely.

You are right it may not have had anything to do with your post but it has to do with the thread you keep posting on defending pilots logging off to avoid death. If they log off in a safe area, they are safe period.
The Apostle
Doomheim
#74 - 2011-09-30 03:55:27 UTC
Quote:
So you think logging off will get my war target not to log off? I guess you are right, but it will also allow my war target to fly safely.

You are right it may not have had anything to do with your post but it has to do with the thread you keep posting on defending pilots logging off to avoid death. If they log off in a safe area, they are safe period.

You never made your high school debating team did you?

[i]Take an aspirin. If pain persists consult your local priest. WTB: An Austrian kangaroo![/i]
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#75 - 2011-09-30 03:56:29 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Martinez wrote:
So you think logging off will get my war target not to log off? I guess you are right, but it will also allow my war target to fly safely.
There's more to it than that, but I'll let you figure it out. There should be plenty hints in the thread for you to go from here. The again, rumour has it that I don't know aaanything about this so I'm sure you knowledgeable people are already familiar with this methods (and more) and are just playing coy.
Quote:
You are right it may not have had anything to do with your post but it has to do with the thread you keep posting on defending pilots logging off to avoid death.
…since the exact same tactic works both ways; since it has been working fine this way for eons; and since there are counter-tactics. It's a complete non-issue, and it is in fact entirely within the rules. In fact, I have yet to hear a good argument why it needs to change.
Martinez
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#76 - 2011-09-30 03:57:58 UTC
The Apostle wrote:
Quote:
Its not game changing for anyone other than the people who are chickens with their ships and log off.

No but it's game changing if you think that CCP will act on your behalf and change the rules. Is that what you're hoping?

Seriously, why are you "PvPing" in high-sec anyway?

Aren't you using game mechanics to apply force to unarmed vessels in EMPIRE space who clearly do not want (or more accurately - ARE UNABLE) to fight you? They used a brain and avoid a lame empire wardec? Pfft....

In my experience - ALL empire PvPers use the following game mechanics....

They DO NOT stay in a PvP engagement if out of ammo/cap/armor/hull. (Why? Chicken?)
They DO run if ougunned. (Why? Chicken?)
They DO utilise neut reps. (Why? Chicken?)
They DO play dock/undock station games. (Why? Chicken?)
They DO use the gate aggro mechanic to avoid/bait WT's. (Why? Chicken?)
They DO use non-corp alts for scouts. (Why? Chicken?)
They DO use non-corp alts or alt corps for supply/logistics. (Why? Chicken?)

C'mon, grow a pair and go play with the real boys. All your wishes for gudfites will come true.



This post is so dumb i shouldnt even comment but i will humor you.

No we dont stay in a engagement with ammo/cap/blah blah blah. Wouldnt do that in 0.0 either.
We would run if outgunned in empire and we would run in 0.0 also.
We can use neut reps in empire, you can use neut reps in 0.0 if you choose.
We actually dont play docking games, but you can do them in 0.0 also.
We can use gate aggro mechanics to avoid/bait just like you can in 0.0.
We can use non-corp alts to for scouts the same as 0.0 corps can.
We can use non-corp alts for supply/logistics just like the 0.0 corps do also.

WHY? Because its eve. That is where pvp happens. Gates, stations, and belts. Sometimes people bring more to a fight, sometimes people run for safety. It doesnt matter where you do it, its all the same. Some of the ships are different, some of the tactics are different. But its all about destroying Non Blues and even Blues sometimes.
The Apostle
Doomheim
#77 - 2011-09-30 04:00:14 UTC
Quote:
This post is so dumb i shouldnt even comment but i will humor you.

Needn't have bothered. Everything you have said so far has made me laugh Big smile

[i]Take an aspirin. If pain persists consult your local priest. WTB: An Austrian kangaroo![/i]
non judgement
Without Fear
Flying Burning Ships Alliance
#78 - 2011-09-30 04:03:29 UTC  |  Edited by: non judgement
Hobogear wrote:
non judgement wrote:
Hobogear wrote:
You know we are talking about taking away 20 seconds or so of not getting aggression. Its not game changing for anyone other than the people who are chickens with their ships and log off. Its not just JF that log off to save their ships.

Blaming the aggressors is so ass backwards i dont even know where to begin. Just goes to show how much the eve player has changed in 8 years. Kind of suprised you lame asses havent gotten pvp in general banned.


You were blobed on the forums and don't like the pvp in the forums either?



This is about making the game better.

Post why this change wouldnt make the game better.

Pros
1. People cannot log off to avoid death.

2. People getting booted from corp while in isnt a big deal if #1 is done. But still think that shouldnt happen.


Cons
1. The 1 pilot that legitimately crashes when jumping to a system with a red gate camp dies. Even though had he sayed online he could have died anyways.

2. CCP has to handle booting pilots from petitions if they wont leave their corp or dock.


I'd only say that if they make it so you could have targetted and killed jump freighter in that situation.. then they'd move all freighter alts to npc corps. So its a bit silly. If you want to at least get one (jump) freighter kill it'd be nice if they stayed in the corp. I give you that much. Its a bit much to change corp just like that. But they'd just stay logged off for longer and wait for others to chase you off before logging back in.
Martinez
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#79 - 2011-09-30 04:04:36 UTC
The Apostle wrote:
Quote:
This post is so dumb i shouldnt even comment but i will humor you.

Needn't have bothered. Everything you have said so far has made me laugh Big smile



Everything you have said has lowered the bar for the eve community. Ding Ding next stop Stormwind City.
non judgement
Without Fear
Flying Burning Ships Alliance
#80 - 2011-09-30 04:06:40 UTC  |  Edited by: non judgement
Tarsas Phage wrote:
non judgement wrote:
Talk about a crying baby.

Awwww no one will be able to see how cool you are cause you didn't get that jf kill.
Its a tactic that has been used for ages.

Even nullsec alliance fc's use it.

The term carebear should apply to highsec wardec people who cry about tactics that stop them from shooting defenceless ships.


Oh please, what color is the sky in your universe? Ok, I won't delve into ad hominem-filled tirade... but...

Throughout history of RL war, any nation that was successful in prosecuting a war against another placed transport and supply infrastructure at the top of their list of priorities... from destroying (defenseless) cargo ships and their ports of call, to (defenseless) trains and the bridges they crossed, these were all considered essential targets, the damage to which would hurt the enemy not only in terms of lost materiel, but also financially. War isn't solely about pew'ing between dedicated combatants.

So, taking this back to EVE, and the topic of the oft-debated logoffski (and subsequent corp dropski), these are clearly attempts to, in CCP's own words, "avoid combat", moreover, it's about avoiding consequences and risks in a game whose players often quip and stress the elements of risk. As for haulers or anything without a gun: In EVE, there is no Geneva Convention, thus there are no Hors de Combat, much to the chagrin of people such as yourself, I'm sure.

Yes I agree. They should have had a good fleet protecting the freighter especially since they are at war.
So those defenceless ship weren't undefended.

It is just a game though.
In a game I'd use any tactic I could to keep a 4-5 bil ship alive.