These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
12Next page
 

Bastion Module Problem
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Torsnk
Mustang Capital
#1 - 2014-01-10 16:17:16 UTC
I sent this email to customer support, but they said they couldn't handle it and suggested that I post on the fourms for Dev Feedback. Here I go:

Recently (on the 31st of December) I was running a mission in a Marauder with a Bastion Module active. The Tranquility server went down due to a DDoS attack (explained in greater detail at this link http://themittani.com/news/eve-online-suffers-ddos-attack ). When I was able to log back on, I was in a Pod and the kill log was due to mission rats. I imagine this was due to the fact that the ship tried to automatically warp out once I was disconnected, but the bastion module (which was active) prevented a warp out.

I submitted a trouble ticket (which took a week to be answered). The ship and most of its modules were restored by CCP.

Nevertheless, I think the warp-out AI for ships with a Bastion Module (or all ships) needs to be modified. From what I understand, modules automatically go offline once you are logged off and the ship tries to warp off after that. However, Bastion Modules take up to 60 seconds to go offline so I imagine the ship attempted to warp off while the bastion module was still active, and was unable to (since bastion modules prevent warping).

As such, this is what I think needs to be changed (either of these should work):

1. The ship should automatically disengage the bastion module at log off and attempt to warp only AFTER the bastion module actually goes offline.

-OR-

2. The ship should automatically disengage the bastion module at log off and REPEATEDLY try to warp off (every 5-10 seconds or so).

I think that would fix the problem.
Batelle
Federal Navy Academy
#2 - 2014-01-10 16:23:56 UTC  |  Edited by: Batelle
There are a number of ways players can mitigate risk, either through their playstyle, ship choice, or fitting choice. That said, the best solution would be to have a single attempt to e-warp right after the bastion cycle ends (but only if it was set to not auto-repeat). There are arguments against any other solution. However, this may very well not be straightforward for the devs to implement. In the meantime, I advise people to consider the stability of their connection and to fit/play accordingly, as CCP generally will not reimburse such losses when caused by client-side connection issues.

"**CCP is changing policy, and has asked that we discontinue the bonus credit program after November 7th. So until then, enjoy a super-bonus of 1B Blink Credit for each 60-day GTC you buy!"**

Never forget.
Ellendras Silver
CrashCat Corporation
#3 - 2014-01-10 16:24:47 UTC
there is no issue read the notes on bastion module!

in this case it was a DOS so it was reimbursed by CCP but normal situations its not because it is the intention that the ship is unable to move by ANY means this includes an emergency warp because of an "DC"

[u]Carpe noctem[/u]
Torsnk
Mustang Capital
#4 - 2014-01-10 16:29:24 UTC
Ellendras Silver wrote:
there is no issue read the notes on bastion module!

in this case it was a DOS so it was reimbursed by CCP but normal situations its not because it is the intention that the ship is unable to move by ANY means this includes an emergency warp because of an "DC"


Read my suggestion: The ship would STILL be unable to move via any means until the cycle time of the bastion module actually finished. THEN the ship would warp.

It would not be a hack to the system it would simply help the ship warp off if there was an inadvertent disconnect via the SAME MEANS as if the player were still commanding the ship.

Questions?
Ellendras Silver
CrashCat Corporation
#5 - 2014-01-10 16:31:44 UTC
Torsnk wrote:
Ellendras Silver wrote:
there is no issue read the notes on bastion module!

in this case it was a DOS so it was reimbursed by CCP but normal situations its not because it is the intention that the ship is unable to move by ANY means this includes an emergency warp because of an "DC"


Read my suggestion: The ship would STILL be unable to move via any means until the cycle time of the bastion module actually finished. THEN the ship would warp.

It would not be a hack to the system it would simply help the ship warp off if there was an inadvertent disconnect via the SAME MEANS as if the player were still commanding the ship.

Questions?


yes i realy see no reason to change it... it never has been an issue that needed an fix for dreads and carriers so i dont see why we should do this now? because carebears dont like being stuck but they do like the huge buff it gives.

well newsflash everything has its price

[u]Carpe noctem[/u]
Torsnk
Mustang Capital
#6 - 2014-01-10 16:42:13 UTC
Ellendras Silver wrote:
Torsnk wrote:
Ellendras Silver wrote:
there is no issue read the notes on bastion module!

in this case it was a DOS so it was reimbursed by CCP but normal situations its not because it is the intention that the ship is unable to move by ANY means this includes an emergency warp because of an "DC"


Read my suggestion: The ship would STILL be unable to move via any means until the cycle time of the bastion module actually finished. THEN the ship would warp.

It would not be a hack to the system it would simply help the ship warp off if there was an inadvertent disconnect via the SAME MEANS as if the player were still commanding the ship.

Questions?


yes i realy see no reason to change it... it never has been an issue that needed an fix for dreads and carriers so i dont see why we should do this now? because carebears dont like being stuck but they do like the huge buff it gives.

well newsflash everything has its price


Yeah, this isn't really a gameplay issue it's more along the lines of: I paid to play a game, the server crashed (i.e. not my fault), I lost my ship as a result (which was reimbursed), but here's how we prevent the same issue from reoccuring (so CCP doesn't lose a paying customer and they don't have to spend the man-hours reimbursing "carebears" who were running missions in Empire (a fairly large percentage of the playerbase) due to problems with CCP's servers (not the users servers).

I'm sorry this hurt your feelings.
Scarlett Wesson
Doomheim
#7 - 2014-01-10 16:45:42 UTC
Carriers and Dreads are rarely used solo. If they DC, there is often someone else to remote them when they get out of Triage/Siege, for instance.

The mechanics of missions make them solo content, by the way the rewards are divided, so the marauders are used solo.

I don't see why it shouldn't be. Your "point" about risk vs reward is pretty dumb, since to gain the bonuses given by the Bastion Module, CCP nerfed the base hulls (example : in terms of mobility).

Also, the fact that you have DCs sometimes shouldn't mean you can't play the game like others do. By all means, remove ewarp totally if it is too OP for you, but the state it currently is in regarding the marauder is ****.
Ellendras Silver
CrashCat Corporation
#8 - 2014-01-10 16:54:20 UTC
Torsnk wrote:
Ellendras Silver wrote:
Torsnk wrote:
Ellendras Silver wrote:
there is no issue read the notes on bastion module!

in this case it was a DOS so it was reimbursed by CCP but normal situations its not because it is the intention that the ship is unable to move by ANY means this includes an emergency warp because of an "DC"


Read my suggestion: The ship would STILL be unable to move via any means until the cycle time of the bastion module actually finished. THEN the ship would warp.

It would not be a hack to the system it would simply help the ship warp off if there was an inadvertent disconnect via the SAME MEANS as if the player were still commanding the ship.

Questions?


yes i realy see no reason to change it... it never has been an issue that needed an fix for dreads and carriers so i dont see why we should do this now? because carebears dont like being stuck but they do like the huge buff it gives.

well newsflash everything has its price


Yeah, this isn't really a gameplay issue it's more along the lines of: I paid to play a game, the server crashed (i.e. not my fault), I lost my ship as a result (which was reimbursed), but here's how we prevent the same issue from reoccuring (so CCP doesn't lose a paying customer and they don't have to spend the man-hours reimbursing "carebears" who were running missions in Empire (a fairly large percentage of the playerbase) due to problems with CCP's servers (not the users servers).

I'm sorry this hurt your feelings.


you paid for the game there was an issue it was resolved. so no problem there

you did not hurt my feelings so you can relax

[u]Carpe noctem[/u]
Kagura Nikon
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#9 - 2014-01-10 17:00:00 UTC
Ellendras Silver wrote:
Torsnk wrote:
Ellendras Silver wrote:
there is no issue read the notes on bastion module!

in this case it was a DOS so it was reimbursed by CCP but normal situations its not because it is the intention that the ship is unable to move by ANY means this includes an emergency warp because of an "DC"


Read my suggestion: The ship would STILL be unable to move via any means until the cycle time of the bastion module actually finished. THEN the ship would warp.

It would not be a hack to the system it would simply help the ship warp off if there was an inadvertent disconnect via the SAME MEANS as if the player were still commanding the ship.

Questions?


yes i realy see no reason to change it... it never has been an issue that needed an fix for dreads and carriers so i dont see why we should do this now? because carebears dont like being stuck but they do like the huge buff it gives.

well newsflash everything has its price



Can you give a single reason why woudl nto be logic to fix it? I mean.. except the keeping your incredibly arrogant elitist ego, derived probably from a need to compensate failure somewhere (probably in PVP seen how we spanked your group recenlty ) trying to make yourself look better than others?

"If brute force does not solve your problem....  then you are  surely not using enough!"
Ellendras Silver
CrashCat Corporation
#10 - 2014-01-10 17:58:03 UTC
Kagura Nikon wrote:
Ellendras Silver wrote:
Torsnk wrote:
Ellendras Silver wrote:
there is no issue read the notes on bastion module!

in this case it was a DOS so it was reimbursed by CCP but normal situations its not because it is the intention that the ship is unable to move by ANY means this includes an emergency warp because of an "DC"


Read my suggestion: The ship would STILL be unable to move via any means until the cycle time of the bastion module actually finished. THEN the ship would warp.

It would not be a hack to the system it would simply help the ship warp off if there was an inadvertent disconnect via the SAME MEANS as if the player were still commanding the ship.

Questions?


yes i realy see no reason to change it... it never has been an issue that needed an fix for dreads and carriers so i dont see why we should do this now? because carebears dont like being stuck but they do like the huge buff it gives.

well newsflash everything has its price



Can you give a single reason why woudl nto be logic to fix it? I mean.. except the keeping your incredibly arrogant elitist ego, derived probably from a need to compensate failure somewhere (probably in PVP seen how we spanked your group recenlty ) trying to make yourself look better than others?


sure...

it has the exact same penalty as siege module , triage module and the rorq indy module. and for all those ships it works the same as the bastion module. works fine so there you got your reasons.

dont like it easy fix fly another ship or use the ship without the bastion module

[u]Carpe noctem[/u]
Kagura Nikon
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#11 - 2014-01-10 18:00:49 UTC
Ellendras Silver wrote:
Kagura Nikon wrote:
Ellendras Silver wrote:
Torsnk wrote:
Ellendras Silver wrote:
there is no issue read the notes on bastion module!

in this case it was a DOS so it was reimbursed by CCP but normal situations its not because it is the intention that the ship is unable to move by ANY means this includes an emergency warp because of an "DC"


Read my suggestion: The ship would STILL be unable to move via any means until the cycle time of the bastion module actually finished. THEN the ship would warp.

It would not be a hack to the system it would simply help the ship warp off if there was an inadvertent disconnect via the SAME MEANS as if the player were still commanding the ship.

Questions?


yes i realy see no reason to change it... it never has been an issue that needed an fix for dreads and carriers so i dont see why we should do this now? because carebears dont like being stuck but they do like the huge buff it gives.

well newsflash everything has its price



Can you give a single reason why woudl nto be logic to fix it? I mean.. except the keeping your incredibly arrogant elitist ego, derived probably from a need to compensate failure somewhere (probably in PVP seen how we spanked your group recenlty ) trying to make yourself look better than others?


sure...

it has the exact same penalty as siege module , triage module and the rorq indy module. and for all those ships it works the same as the bastion module. works fine so there you got your reasons.

dont like it easy fix fly another ship or use the ship without the bastion module


so why not to FIX it for all 3? It makes the game BETTER. There is no Logical reason to keep it like they are now. Or keep them turned ON, or make a second warp attempt.

Also, Dreads in Siege are not used in solo PVE activities whee they will die like marauders would (and battleships would NOT). When a dread loose connection it dies to PVP. Same with a triage carrier.

"If brute force does not solve your problem....  then you are  surely not using enough!"
Batelle
Federal Navy Academy
#12 - 2014-01-10 18:03:08 UTC
The reason its not a huge issue for siege/triage is that those are used in PVP settings, and weather or not a DC'ed pilot lives or dies has very little to do with weather or not his ship initiates an e-warp. Not so with missions or other solo PVE with marauders. Naturally if the issue is addressed for bastion, then it would apply to those other modules as well, but again, wouldn't really change much for them.

"**CCP is changing policy, and has asked that we discontinue the bonus credit program after November 7th. So until then, enjoy a super-bonus of 1B Blink Credit for each 60-day GTC you buy!"**

Never forget.
Felsusguy
Panopticon Engineering
#13 - 2014-01-10 22:16:26 UTC
I wasn't even aware of that it worked this way.

In that case I agree, it's a problem. Needs to be fixed.

The Caldari put business before pleasure. The Gallente put business in pleasure.
Shantetha
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#14 - 2014-01-10 23:11:50 UTC
Was brought up to Rise and Fozzie, they ignored it. The trolls called it 'balanced' , I disagree but then again I think you should be able to use the mjd while in bastion mode.
Jar Re
Death N No Taxes
#15 - 2014-02-11 22:47:15 UTC
just lost a paladin to this. i guess i stupidly assumed the obvious when someone hit a telephone pole in the neighborhood knocking the power/internet out when i figured it would ewarp when the module finished its cycle. instead i died to 3 ships in a mission.

this is quite literally game ruining and utterly pointless that it doesn't work that way.
Ines Tegator
Serious Business Inc. Ltd. LLC. etc.
#16 - 2014-02-11 22:55:40 UTC
Tank modules stay active for a short time when you DC (personally tested). If the Bastion did the same (does it already? unable to test), it would prevent ship death by keeping the siege mode tank boost active. If your tank is inadequate to stay alive in this situation, you deserve to lose the ship anyway. This is the only change needed and it would be trivial to implement.

Overhaul Dscan!
Rowells
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#17 - 2014-02-11 23:52:33 UTC
I think this is reasonable. If you DC and the bastion module is active you won't warp out at all. Assuming you can survuve the rats, your ship is still sitting there until the rat aggro timer runs out (which is unlikely since the rats dont stop). if you die because the rats scramble you out of bastion or your tank fails then by all means die. However being in space indefinitely seems a bit excessive because of this.
Captain StringfellowHawk
Forsaken Reavers
#18 - 2014-02-12 01:08:59 UTC
I Love the capital pilots getting involved in this. I can't tell you how many missions I see Rorquals, dreadnaughts or carriers in siege mode in. Imagine it this way for the PVPers.... Your in combat... the game gets DDOs'd the enemy player ships KEEP shooting but your logi backup or anyback up that typically keeps you alive once the siege ends.. is gone. On a Kronos while Bastion takes 60 seconds to turn off... your local rep turns right off so does the rest of your tank. So while he would of been adequately tanked for the mission,, the DDOS and Ewarp turned all his tank BUT bastion off as it spools down. Now imagine a Wrecking Ball fleet all balled up and spidered together is in combat... a DDOS hits and knocks eve off for say.. 4 hours... Servers come back up... you get the ping to mass log on. You log on in a pod.. Your enemy ships kept firing cycling targets etc (sieged ships NEVER fly alone... unless they are Special snow flakes) You find out that the entire 500 man wreckingball fleet died in 4 hours to the other caps or subcaps because of anchored bubbles.. your ship not moving... no logi back up and your mods all turned off....

Now in a Mission Rats keep shooting etc, When you DC Bastion slowly ticks down, other cycles once finished turn off... So your local Rep turned off, your hardners and reactives(if armor) turned off... Rats kept shooting, Game is down.. In any other situation the bastion Marauder can laugh off a 10/10. It can laugh off worlds collide or any epic arc and level 4 out there with just a T2 fit.

I agree this should be fixed. Dev's should make modules stay active until the system registers the Ship Ewarped off correctly (while under NPC attack) I would love to see a mission report from a Dread user in WH space or any Null pocket - in siege - missioning. Unless your that alliances really special snowflake.. I doubt it existed.. and with the null communities tenacity if the DDOS did occur and the ship was lost.. this forum thread would be 10X blown up.
Linkxsc162534
Silent Scourge
#19 - 2014-02-12 04:26:52 UTC
So whats the problem with make ships make several attempts to Ewarp when the game crashes/DCs?
"carriers and dreads don't do it"
bullshit, hell why don't carriers and dreads do it. Also its always seemed pretty stupid to me that all defence mods on your ship die when you crash. It would be nothing for the game to... you know, leave your hardeners running, its always been a point of anger for me.

Personally I haven't lost a ship to this problem, but I did DC a couple months ago because someone literally took out a pole by my house. Had to drive to my friend's house, kick him out of HIS mission, and logged back in ~4 minutes later to find my golem with ~500 structure left. Ship just sitting there waiting to die.
Vas Eldryn
#20 - 2014-02-12 07:59:12 UTC  |  Edited by: Vas Eldryn
I've come close to losing a golem twice to this issue, although the tank managed to bare the load both times.... a golem even tech II fit is a $30+ ship (using plex prices), mine is over $90... too much to risk losing to technical difficulties, so while I haven't sold it, its hasn't undocked for fear of a DC for ages.
12Next page