EVE General Discussion

Is this a troll post or does the op really not understand that if someone is close enough to target you...you are not safe? Idk..it just seems rather cut and dry to me. +1 for the troll

Target lock can apply both ways.

You locking someone else. Someone else locking you

Actually, you aren't being forced by a gun, you're being forced by being targeted, which is very much different and requires no gun. Personally I think the onus should be on the aggressor to make an actual aggressive move to keep someone logged in. Of course that would be adding a small amount of challenge, and we know most aggressors don't like that.

unless your logi, targeting/locking somebody is an aggressive move....

Wait, what I have utterly failed to comprehend in this thread is... why did the freighter pilot stay logged in at all while being bumped? What kept him from pulling the plug and happily disappearing in one minute and a half? If he survived such a lengthy bump, the agressor was not very keen on ganking him anyway.

Aggressive action is supposed to provoke a concord response. If you want to gank someone and they are trying to log off, shoot them. Seems a bit ludicrous that targeting them can prevent them safe logging off yet that's not considered an aggressive action in itself.

Not according to the game mechanics. You don't receive any type of aggression timer.

That may be the case from the way the mechanics are designed currently, but that doesn't make it right. Why should someone be able to prevent someone from being safe, yet not be considered a hostile action?

IMHO, the way it works with preventing a "normal" logoff is how it should work for the safe logoff too. If you want to stop someone safe logging off you should create a timer. If that means just using a rookie ship, fair enough, but the effort should be there.

To be fair, this sounds the "right" way it should play out. If anything, it sounds like someone is trying to exploit the safe logoff function to pull a logoffski when in a most decidedly not-safe situation.

Safe logoff exists, not to circumvent other players knowledge that you are trying to log-off (which sounds like how it is being attempted to be used here - the pilot knows they will get aggressed if they do a standard log-off, so they were hoping to safe-log in order to trick their hunter who wouldn't see they were doing it til the second they vanished), but to ensure when you are in a situation where you believe yourself to be completely safe from harm, you can't be caught out by a surprise occuring during the log-off period before your ship vanishes (because you have eyes on your ship during its "log-out" time).

Targetting preventing safe logoff is actually quite a clever way of averting it being used to pull sneaky logoffskis. If you could initiate a "safe" log off despite being targetted (hence, when you are in an unsafe situation), I would argue that the fact you have gone in to a safe-log timer should be visible to everyone else on grid (as doing a normal log-off is, since you see them vanish from local even though the ship is still in space) - maybe by a pulsing effect on the ship and the timer visible alongside in the manner of a reinforcement timer, so that enemies can react to the attempt to log off in the manner that they could if you had attempted a standard logoffski.

It's from your own alliance, is the very best part.

Exactly. CCP did away with 'logoffski' for a reason.

I think the thing to do in this case is bring some repper ships log off the freighter and pulse-rep it till it disappears or whatever (and if it's not an exploit, spawn CONCORD wherever the fighter is)

im my mind english is broken. what can speak properly when others cant read what you saiding?