These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Hobogear
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#81 - 2011-09-30 04:08:18 UTC
non judgement wrote:
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 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. I fyou 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.



Let them use alts, its better than having the target there and just disappear due to fail game mechanics covering for the Carebear masses.
nubile slave
Advanced Weapon Supplement League
Fraternity.
#82 - 2011-09-30 04:10:25 UTC  |  Edited by: nubile slave
Came looking for laughs, but it appears that someone wants "easy mode". Shocked

"This is about making the game better for me. "

fixed it for you.
Tarsas Phage
Sniggerdly
#83 - 2011-09-30 04:10:34 UTC
De'Veldrin wrote:
Let's look at the problem logically:

If a frigate did the same tactic, you would easily destroy it as soon as it uncloaked, assuming you could lock it before it warped off. it has low shield, armor, and hull - easy enough to shoot and pop.

So the answer "Bring more friends" is appropriate here. You could easily pop some ships that do this - it's only certain classes which have hit points in excess of the amount of damage you can perform in the amount of time you have to kill them. For those situations, having more people shooting it would enable you to accomplish your goal.

As for why it's allowed - because CCP chose to err on the side of their customers in terms of the vagaries of internet connections.


You're missing one important detail, though. The client can easily advise the server if a quit was user-directed (by him/her pressing CTRL-Q, ESC and then hitting the logoff button, etc... even if the client was closed via the task manager as the client will get a distinct signal from the OS)

So the whole "what about internet disconnects" argument is not really valid... mechanisms exist both on the OS and network layer that CCP could use to determine if a sudden client quit was user-induced or caused by a network issue or computer crash.

If CCP takes advantage of these mechanisms, they could apply a distinct timer to the person's ship should he do it in space.

To further your point, I propose that the length of the ship-in-space timer be tied to the EHP of the ship itself. This makes it so that smaller, easier to kill ships have a proportionally smaller window to be destroyed, but bigger ships, whose employ in a fight or during a war carriers inherently more risk, have a larger window.

SIGQUIT,
/T
Martinez
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#84 - 2011-09-30 04:13:45 UTC
non judgement wrote:
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.



I am not saying they shouldnt try it, I am saying it shouldnt be allowed. I wont log a ship off to save it, but that is me. Like you said its a game, my kids arent on board. CCP man up, take it out of the game.
Martinez
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#85 - 2011-09-30 04:16:01 UTC
nubile slave wrote:
Came looking for laughs, but it appears that someone wants "easy mode". Shocked

"This is about making the game better for me. "

fixed it for you.



LOL. You believe a pilot should be able to log off to save his ship. Isnt that the epitome of "easy mode".
The Apostle
Doomheim
#86 - 2011-09-30 04:28:36 UTC
Quote:
So the whole "what about internet disconnects" argument is not really valid... mechanisms exist both on the OS and network layer that CCP could use to determine if a sudden client quit was user-induced or caused by a network issue or computer crash.

And exactly what signal would CCP get if I clicked OFF on my modem or computer?

[i]Take an aspirin. If pain persists consult your local priest. WTB: An Austrian kangaroo![/i]
Tarsas Phage
Sniggerdly
#87 - 2011-09-30 04:54:08 UTC  |  Edited by: Tarsas Phage
The Apostle wrote:
Quote:
So the whole "what about internet disconnects" argument is not really valid... mechanisms exist both on the OS and network layer that CCP could use to determine if a sudden client quit was user-induced or caused by a network issue or computer crash.

And exactly what signal would CCP get if I clicked OFF on my modem or computer?


Simple. On the network layer it would look like a usual unnegotiated peer disconnect on the socket. Ever see a network error message along the lines of "Connection reset by peer" or "Connection timed out" ? Yeah, the EVE server's OS would send the EVE server code one of these messages.

Yanking the power from your compy, from the server's point of view, would be no different than you pulling the ethernet from your modem/router, or your ISP crapping its connection to your house, or from it to the rest of the internet. The socket that the EVE server maintains for your client's connection would time out as it has not received a reply from your client for a certain length of time (usually measured in the 10's to 100's of seconds... this is a customizable parameter) and cause a socket timeout. The EVE server code catches this and initiates the code path to safe your ship (e-warp and so on)

In fact, this can be more detrimental to your spaceboat because the server will think everything's A-OK with your connection until this timeout is reached when in fact the actual disconnect or crash happened 20.. 30.. maybe even 60 seconds prior. In the intervening time, your ship is a valid thingy in space that can be destroyed.

From what I can tell, the EVE server code makes no distinction between a user-initiated client quit (a graceful quit, if you will) and a bona fide computer crash or a disconnect caused by an anomaly in the network between the port on the back of your computer and CCP's data center. My point is that this distinction could be easily made (ie, the disconnect logic in both the client and the server be made more robust) because the facilities to accomplish this are readily available.
The Apostle
Doomheim
#88 - 2011-09-30 04:59:00 UTC
Tarsas Phage wrote:
The Apostle wrote:
Quote:
So the whole "what about internet disconnects" argument is not really valid... mechanisms exist both on the OS and network layer that CCP could use to determine if a sudden client quit was user-induced or caused by a network issue or computer crash.

And exactly what signal would CCP get if I clicked OFF on my modem or computer?


Simple. On the network layer it would look like a usual unnegotiated peer disconnect on the socket. Ever see a network error message along the lines of "Connection reset by peer" ? Yeah, the EVE server's OS would send the EVE server code that message.

Yanking the power from your compy, from the server's point of view, would be no different than you pulling the ethernet from your modem/router, or your ISP crapping its connection to your house, or from it to the rest of the internet. The socket that the EVE server maintains for your client's connection would time out as it has not received a reply from your client for a certain length of time (usually measured in the 10's to 100's of seconds... this is a customizable parameter) and cause a socket timeout. The EVE server code catches this and initiates the code path to safe your ship (e-warp and so on)

In fact, this can be more detrimental to your spaceboat because the server will think everything's A-OK with your connection until this timeout is reached when in fact the actual disconnect or crash happened 20.. 30.. maybe even 60 seconds prior. In the intervening time, your ship is a valid thingy in space that can be destroyed.

From what I can tell, the EVE server code makes no distinction between a user-initiated client quit (a graceful quit, if you will) and a bona fide computer crash or a disconnect caused by an anomaly in the network between the port on the back of your computer and CCP's data center. My point is that this distinction could be easily made (ie, the disconnect logic in both the client and the server be made more robust) because the facilities to accomplish this are readily available.


Lolz. I was taking the **** and you actually came back at me with a good post... +1

I concede.

[i]Take an aspirin. If pain persists consult your local priest. WTB: An Austrian kangaroo![/i]
Tarsas Phage
Sniggerdly
#89 - 2011-09-30 05:57:39 UTC  |  Edited by: Tarsas Phage
non judgement wrote:

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.


This exactly the point we're trying to make. If all you need to do to save a 5bn ISK, 250k EHP ship that you decided to galavant around in unscouted or unescorted is hit CTRL-Q, with the side option of having the pilot kicked from corp so that he logs back in in a NPC corp and thus not a target... well... there are now essentially zero reprecussions for doing these silly things aside from a slight delay in one's travels and perhaps a hefty repair bill.

At the end of the day, this says to me that there's something wrong... the penalties do no scale with the assumed risk in this regard, and that's why in an earlier post I proposed a sliding scale timer based on a ship's EHP. Furthermore, when it's quite obvious that a player is being kicked from corp to avoid a loss, CCP should add additional penalties - say, the pilot will log back on with any aggression he had when his ship de-rez'd regardless of the length of time, or something along those lines.

In short, no rewards for being stupid.

As for the "why don't you bring moar DPS" crowd... the same can be said about the carrier/JF/dread pilot... he could also bring more escort.
non judgement
Without Fear
Flying Burning Ships Alliance
#90 - 2011-09-30 06:29:53 UTC
Tarsas Phage wrote:
non judgement wrote:

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.


This exactly the point we're trying to make. If all you need to do to save a 5bn ISK, 250k EHP ship that you decided to galavant around in unscouted or unescorted is hit CTRL-Q, with the side option of having the pilot kicked from corp so that he logs back in in a NPC corp and thus not a target... well... there are now essentially zero reprecussions for doing these silly things aside from a slight delay in one's travels and perhaps a hefty repair bill.

At the end of the day, this says to me that there's something wrong... the penalties do no scale with the assumed risk in this regard, and that's why in an earlier post I proposed a sliding scale timer based on a ship's EHP. Furthermore, when it's quite obvious that a player is being kicked from corp to avoid a loss, CCP should add additional penalties - say, the pilot will log back on with any aggression he had when his ship de-rez'd regardless of the length of time, or something along those lines.

In short, no rewards for being stupid.

As for the "why don't you bring moar DPS" crowd... the same can be said about the carrier/JF/dread pilot... he could also bring more escort.


If the guy got killed doing what he did... no one would be surprised.

The problem is that logging off is a tactic that many people use to save their bacon.

Changing corp is an interesting thing for sure. But he could have just left it there and log on 4 hours later (or scout it with another character to see when its clear), when no one is around, log the freighter back in. Basically the same outcome.

This time you were unlucky...
Next time maybe you'll get him.
El Arto
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#91 - 2011-09-30 07:48:36 UTC
Everyone defending the loggoffski JF pilot:: ALL FAGS!
--Thread--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jaroslav Unwanted
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#92 - 2011-09-30 07:51:30 UTC
El Arto wrote:
Everyone defending the loggoffski JF pilot:: ALL FAGS!
--Thread--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Well i guess i can live with that. Altho not sure if i could live with stamp too dumb to learn to bypass game mechanics using said mechanics.
Hobogear
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#93 - 2011-09-30 17:47:37 UTC
Jaroslav Unwanted wrote:
El Arto wrote:
Everyone defending the loggoffski JF pilot:: ALL FAGS!
--Thread--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Well i guess i can live with that. Altho not sure if i could live with stamp too dumb to learn to bypass game mechanics using said mechanics.



you shouldnt have to bypass game mechanics to kill a ship that jumps into you and the pilot decides yank his modem out of the wall.
De'Veldrin
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#94 - 2011-09-30 17:52:51 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Hobogear wrote:
1. I am a alt. Not posting with my main to for intel reasons.
Ok. Se he isn't allowed to use meta-game tactics to avoid hostilities, but you are.

Got it.


ROFLMAO

+1 for you

De'Veldrin's Corollary (to Malcanis' Law): Any idea that seeks to limit the ability of a large nullsec bloc to do something in the name of allowing more small groups into sov null will inevitably make it that much harder for small groups to enter sov null.
De'Veldrin
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#95 - 2011-09-30 18:06:04 UTC
Martinez wrote:

We can use neut reps in empire, you can use neut reps in 0.0 if you choose.



I truly cannot believe you presented this as an argument. The holes in it are so large you could fly a Dominix through it.

De'Veldrin's Corollary (to Malcanis' Law): Any idea that seeks to limit the ability of a large nullsec bloc to do something in the name of allowing more small groups into sov null will inevitably make it that much harder for small groups to enter sov null.
Martinez
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#96 - 2011-09-30 22:02:42 UTC
De'Veldrin wrote:
Martinez wrote:

We can use neut reps in empire, you can use neut reps in 0.0 if you choose.



I truly cannot believe you presented this as an argument. The holes in it are so large you could fly a Dominix through it.


LOL, ok please tell me the hole in the statement that you can use neutral reps in 0.0 if you choose. You can, its a fact. Is it the best tactic? No more than likely not. As a matter of fact I didnt bring up the argument. It came from some noob saying empire pvp isnt real pvp blah blah blah.
Tarsas Phage
Sniggerdly
#97 - 2011-09-30 22:16:04 UTC
De'Veldrin wrote:
Tippia wrote:
Hobogear wrote:
1. I am a alt. Not posting with my main to for intel reasons.
Ok. Se he isn't allowed to use meta-game tactics to avoid hostilities, but you are.

Got it.


ROFLMAO

+1 for you


While you and Tippia may think that you've scored a logic hole-in-one, the fact that you're pinning a :forumvictory: on the use of an alt is pathetic. You've missed the overarching point - and that is the use of a logoff mechanic to avoid dire and expensive consequences stemming from laziness, a lack of judgement, inexperience, or all of the above.

Use of alts to do :whatever: is normal and CCP actively encourages it. I'm sure you have your own band of alts as well, some of which may even have posts to their name amongst these very forums. To assume otherwise would be unrealistic.
The Apostle
Doomheim
#98 - 2011-10-01 06:04:32 UTC
Quote:
It came from some noob saying empire pvp isnt real pvp blah blah blah.

Actually what I said was that empire PvP is not real if you are not prepared to accept the empire mechanics that go with it.

In 0.0 you would not have a problem killing the JF if he jumped corps. THAT is the price YOU pay for practising your PvP in empire.

You want the safety and convenience of high-sec but no-one else should be allowed to!

Grow a pair.

[i]Take an aspirin. If pain persists consult your local priest. WTB: An Austrian kangaroo![/i]
Jaroslav Unwanted
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#99 - 2011-10-01 06:57:50 UTC
Martinez wrote:
De'Veldrin wrote:
Martinez wrote:

We can use neut reps in empire, you can use neut reps in 0.0 if you choose.



I truly cannot believe you presented this as an argument. The holes in it are so large you could fly a Dominix through it.


LOL, ok please tell me the hole in the statement that you can use neutral reps in 0.0 if you choose. You can, its a fact. Is it the best tactic? No more than likely not. As a matter of fact I didnt bring up the argument. It came from some noob saying empire pvp isnt real pvp blah blah blah.




well you can .. you also can fit an rifter with 1400mm offlined i guess yet its pretty dumg idea wont you agree...

Tho for your previous contra-argument if i can call it that ... its not really a contra-argument.

Just because you can do it somewhere else under different circumstances doesnt prove your point if you tried to make any.
Jaroslav Unwanted
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#100 - 2011-10-01 07:06:21 UTC  |  Edited by: Jaroslav Unwanted
Anyway back to topic...

I don't really have any opinion on logoffski/logonski tactics...

I mean if i go out to low sec with overly armor tanked abaddon i probably will make it back to gate and jump to safety anyway... So you lose your kill .. Would you suggest ones other part agro you, you wont be able to jump back to safety because of infinite aggression timer ?

As many said. Yes its coward tactics if there is non superior fleet control involved ofc than it could work for tactical advantage etc. So in one way its bad in other way it opens more room for tactical maneuvering.

I get the part when you wanted to kill that JF. And many posts were written about bring more people with the following he could get scout and or guard group. However whats the point of bringing guard group if its not superior to the gang fleet...

f.e. JF accompanied with 3xdramiel 10xhurricane nano shield 5x vagabond 4x scimitar vs 30 CR spider tanked typhoons
or JF accompanied with 30 CR spider tanked typhoons vs 3xdramiel 10xhurricane nano shield 5x vagabond 4x scimitar

So what would the output be ? you kill the JF without problem and ignore rest ...

Scout is way to go to be honest .. an alt in some mwd/cloack frig can do the job ..