EVE General Discussion

All I can say is what I have said. Just because the feature is here does not mean it is working entirely as intended. Just because it hasn't been fixed doesn't mean it shouldn't be. Similar features have been changed recently and maybe this one needs reconsideration.

Further arguments made along this line would be a bit useless, for or against the feature, I think.

Having all ships last fifteen minutes without aggro would be crazy, yeah.

I agree that a 5 second window of attack post log off, is the best solution and an easy one to implement. If someone is being attacked only 5s after they log off, they are definitely using logoffski.

Better luck next time I guess.

I'm still hoping for the promised CCP reply. I'd like to know if they are not only aware that this a commonly used tactic (they probably are) but also if they like it that way (meaning it's an intentional situation) or if it was a side effect of a design decision.

Are there plans to change ("correct") this? Will it stay this way, because not only are the rules enforced correctly by the server but also those rules are like this on purpose? Will this be revamped in the process of the 'Crimewatch' overhaul that is underway (as it has to do with flagging this is actually pretty likely) and will it be reimplemented like it is or like it logically should be?

I still maintain that any game mechanic that promotes logging off to save something goes completely against all logical rules.

A word of caution though for all those low-sec'ers who wish to shoot more freighters: This might have a worse impact on you than you think, as it will likely stop or at least reduce trade to your region, forcing you to go to high (either with main or alt) for shopping more often. Not all traders (or rather only very few of them) can afford or have at their disposal protection personnel sufficient to protect a freighter on a lowsec trip...

Still waiting on an answer....Hopefully you have not forgotten about it!

EVE is supposed to be hard and there are risks to playing the game. This includes going to low/null sec. Pirates, being the cowards you so describe, are risking thier ships just as much as anyone else. If you don't like PvP don't play EVE.

Simple isn't it?

The solution is to not be so ******* obvious.

"Oh, a massive gate camp, eh? Do current game mechanics allow me to log off here? Yes. Does my ship disappear within a minute if I log off now? Yes. Is this intended? Yes. OK, then I will log off and cross my fingers"

It's the current implementation of game mechanics that this is working as intended. You can't, by definition, call it an exploit until CCP has ruled on it - and then you're not allowed to talk about it. So stop calling things you don't like an exploit.

Next time, use two sodding brain cells and set up a decent trap. Get your ships out of system and off grid. Then just have one stealth bomber decloak and lob a torp to gain aggro.

Then he's done for, because if he logs off he is aggroed, and whatever else he tries he will be too slow getting into warp to escape. Unless he's warping to station, I guess.

You got outplayed, because knowing he could safely log off was smarter than your gatecamp. Sorry.

He doesn't care that its broken. He wants to or already does abuse it is what it most likely comes down too.

The Fact that CCP has said in the past that it's not exploit is not enough of a proof to you? Note how the dev commenting in this thread, talks how he cant answer whether this behaviour (aka 1 minute logoff without aggression) will be changed or not, but will bring it up for discussion. That along with https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=165121#post165121 goes to prove, that at this time, it's not considered exploit by CCP.

Why? Because CCP says xyz is exploit, instead of listing ALL the possible interactions in eve that are NOT exploits. You're basically claiming, that 0.01 isk games, ship bumping, target locking, smartbombing in empire, corp hopping, ANYTHING is exploit until CCP comes down and says "No, this instance number 7559042 is not exploit."

Protip; Old alliance dec shield against wardecs was exploit, they announced it, they acted against it. Then they reversed their decision and it no longer is exploit. Same can happen here, this is not exploit at this moment, it COULD be exploit tomorrow, that's what the CCP guy is saying when he talks about bringing the issue up for re-evaluation.

yeah he clearly wasnt accounting for the situation I have laid out in this thread.

Try context next time.