These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Assembly Hall

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

[Proposal] Compromise on Aggressed Logout Timers
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Jita Bloodtear
Bloodtear Labs
#1 - 2011-10-13 21:23:00 UTC
The aggressed logging changes makes me hesitate. The simplicy of it is good, but the implications are bad. The 15 min timer was introduced because CCP acknowledged that computer problems happen and you are sometimes unintentionally disconnected in battle. The 15 min timer was there to ensure you'd die if you were going to die. Supercaps have such large EHP that they broke this rule. Now there is the expectation that supers who would not normally have died will die as a result (i.e. a super is aggressed attacking a tower in an empty system, he DCs and warps off aggressed. A lone helios comes in, scans him down, and keeps him aggressed for 4hrs until his friends get home from work to come kill it). This breaks the intention of the original rule in the opposite direction.

The proposed halfway point on this much more closely mimics the original spirit of the rule:

Standard 15 min aggression logoff timers for all ships (can make it 30 for supers if you want), and then only give the infinitely repeating aggression that holds the ship in game if the ship is super-pointed or bubbled. If a super isn't pointed or held down within 15-30 minutes after logging, there is no reasonable assumption that the ship would have normally died otherwise.
Drake Draconis
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#2 - 2011-10-13 21:27:34 UTC  |  Edited by: Drake Draconis
Jita Bloodtear wrote:
The aggressed logging changes makes me hesitate. The simplicy of it is good, but the implications are bad. The 15 min timer was introduced because CCP acknowledged that computer problems happen and you are sometimes unintentionally disconnected in battle. The 15 min timer was there to ensure you'd die if you were going to die. Supercaps have such large EHP that they broke this rule. Now there is the expectation that supers who would not normally have died will die as a result (i.e. a super is aggressed attacking a tower in an empty system, he DCs and warps off aggressed. A lone helios comes in, scans him down, and keeps him aggressed for 4hrs until his friends get home from work to come kill it). This breaks the intention of the original rule in the opposite direction.

The proposed halfway point on this much more closely mimics the original spirit of the rule:

Standard 15 min aggression logoff timers for all ships (can make it 30 for supers if you want), and then only give the infinitely repeating aggression that holds the ship in game if the ship is super-pointed or bubbled. If a super isn't pointed or held down within 15-30 minutes after logging, there is no reasonable assumption that the ship would have normally died otherwise.



your missing the point.

The point of the change is to prevent people from escapaing by pulling the plug on the interent connection.


Mainly this is a massive debate thats been going on for years...you cannot and will not be able to prove if that person was disconnected or just pulling the plug to save his precious ship...SC or not.

Not supporting

================ STOP THE EVEMAIL SPAM! https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=78152
Jita Bloodtear
Bloodtear Labs
#3 - 2011-10-13 22:48:22 UTC
Drake Draconis wrote:

your missing the point.

The point of the change is to prevent people from escapaing by pulling the plug on the interent connection.


Mainly this is a massive debate thats been going on for years...you cannot and will not be able to prove if that person was disconnected or just pulling the plug to save his precious ship...SC or not.

Not supporting

I never differentiated between legit and illegit disconnects. It doesn't matter. If you cannot catch (point/bubble) or kill a super in a full 30 minutes after it's signed off, then you don't deserve the kill regardless. I'm not missing the point. The point is that only ships that were going to die if they hadn't DC'd should die. This is about fairness. All the major engagements where an entire side mass logged to avoid death, will all still die under this proposed change. All lowsec hotdrops that go south and the super logs to avoid dying, will die as a result.
Endovior
PFU Consortium
#4 - 2011-10-13 22:56:44 UTC
Reasonable point is reasonable; inclined to agree. Any force capable of killing an SC should be able to point it. Heck, any force capable of killing ships in general should be able to point. It'd be entirely reasonable to consider logoff-warp in the same sense as any other warp, and require point to counter it.
FloppieTheBanjoClown
Arcana Imperii Ltd.
#5 - 2011-10-13 23:37:51 UTC
Who doesn't get point on a ship they're trying to kill?

Founding member of the Belligerent Undesirables movement.
Trader 99
The Black Hornets
#6 - 2011-10-15 21:59:58 UTC
I see nothing wrong with the aggression logout timers.People will use any means to avoid dying and this is long overdue.
Lykouleon
Noble Sentiments
Second Empire.
#7 - 2011-10-16 06:23:48 UTC
Considering how many times I've lost kills because someone "accidentally" lost their internet connection, forget being nice to people who legitimately lose it and make them face the ~consequences~

Lykouleon > CYNO ME CLOSER so I can hit them with my sword
Cheekything
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#8 - 2011-10-17 20:55:02 UTC
I think maybe a % per 15 minutes that needs to be dealt for the timer to reset but i'll be honest I like the idea for the new system.
Feligast
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#9 - 2011-10-17 21:06:20 UTC
Endovior wrote:
Reasonable point is reasonable; inclined to agree. Any force capable of killing an SC should be able to point it. Heck, any force capable of killing ships in general should be able to point. It'd be entirely reasonable to consider logoff-warp in the same sense as any other warp, and require point to counter it.



FloppieTheBanjoClown wrote:
Who doesn't get point on a ship they're trying to kill?


Totally agree with both points. To that end, remove the EWAR immunity from supercaps immediately.
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed
Agony Empire
#10 - 2011-10-17 21:32:23 UTC

First off, the helios issue:

I would think standard protocol after this change will be for fleets to insure their shinys are all safe before evac system. If they can't go kick that helios off of you long enough for you to disappear, then that alliance doesn't deserve your ship.

The pendulum before this change has very much been in favor of the log-offer. Now its swing very much the other direction. But what real abuse will this cause? People are supposed to be careful about logging off with aggression. Does this spell doom and gloom for those that crash or log off while aggressed... yes... but is that really a horrible thing? No... Is it fair? Given how the current logoff mechanics have been blatantly abused, I think this change is appropriate.
Elise DarkStar
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#11 - 2011-10-17 21:44:37 UTC
This entire thread is based on a misunderstanding of the proposed mechanics you want to change.

/end thread