These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Logoffski exploit, video proof.

First post
Author
CCP Goliath
C C P
C C P Alliance
#121 - 2012-03-25 17:12:54 UTC
Things are getting a bit heated in this thread, so I wanted to say that while I can't give a definitive answer to the question of this behaviour changing or not, I can promise to raise it tomorrow morning with the design guys and get an answer for you.

CCP Goliath | QA Director | EVE Illuminati | @CCP_Goliath

Roime
Shiva Furnace
#122 - 2012-03-25 17:22:27 UTC
@ Rouge,

let me try again.

1) Is logging off to save your ship lame and pansyass? Hell yes, it's for people without a pair.

2) Is is possible to prevent this while protecting people who DC or have to log off for legitimate reasons? No.

3) Is it still possible to kill someone who uses this lame tactic? Yes.


@ CCP Goliath,

One thing that could make using logoffski less feasible for conducting lame behaviour is to remove keyboard shortcut for logging off, and force a warning popup:

"You are currently in open space, and after logging off your ship will stay in space for 60 seconds- are you sure you want to do this now?"

Which defaults to "No", and no checkbox to disable this. This would mean very little extra clicking for legitimate use, but the added seconds could mean the difference between getting aggroed and successfully logoffsking to avoid death.

.

BeanBagKing
The Order of Atlas
#123 - 2012-03-25 17:47:13 UTC
CCP Goliath wrote:
Things are getting a bit heated in this thread, so I wanted to say that while I can't give a definitive answer to the question of this behaviour changing or not, I can promise to raise it tomorrow morning with the design guys and get an answer for you.


Goliath, if you're considering raising the issue tomorrow there's only one thing that I think should be brought up. That is jumping through a gate to clear aggression. It seems like a bad mechanic to me. All too often we've had someone jump into us, we've aggressed him and had him burn back to the gate, jump through, and log off.

I understand the desire to make it fair to people who get disconnected by accident (and all to often it does seem like crashes occur on a jump), but it doesn't seem like like the intended game design that you can have aggression one second, jump a gate, and not have it the next.

I think it would also be worth discussing aggression after log off, although this isn't something I have a problem with, because I have had targets escape this way, we land on them and put 2 rounds into them right before they disappear. Unlike OP I don't really have a problem with it, it sucks, but it's part of the game. Again though, I don't think that logging off was intended to be part of the game mechanics. Basically I'm saying that it's worth talking about, but I'll roll with whatever you guys decide.

Like I said before, I support things the way they currently are, but if you changed something, I'd be fine with that too. Iteration and all that right :) nothing wrong with going back and looking at mechanics and wondering if they are doing the job they were intended to do.
Muestereate
Minions LLC
#124 - 2012-03-25 18:08:00 UTC  |  Edited by: Muestereate
Freighter killer tears best tears.

He's got no guns, no modules, no velocity, no align time.
RougeOperator
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#125 - 2012-03-25 18:09:14 UTC
Roime wrote:
@ Rouge,

let me try again.

1) Is logging off to save your ship lame and pansyass? Hell yes, it's for people without a pair.

2) Is is possible to prevent this while protecting people who DC or have to log off for legitimate reasons? No.

3) Is it still possible to kill someone who uses this lame tactic? Yes.


@ CCP Goliath,

One thing that could make using logoffski less feasible for conducting lame behaviour is to remove keyboard shortcut for logging off, and force a warning popup:

"You are currently in open space, and after logging off your ship will stay in space for 60 seconds- are you sure you want to do this now?"

Which defaults to "No", and no checkbox to disable this. This would mean very little extra clicking for legitimate use, but the added seconds could mean the difference between getting aggroed and successfully logoffsking to avoid death.



Not when you are using an exploit cloak trick. Nothing changes or addresses the exploit with your solution.

**Space wizards are real, they can make 10058 votes vanish. "and for a moment i hurd 10k goons cry out, then silence" **

RougeOperator
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#126 - 2012-03-25 18:11:02 UTC  |  Edited by: RougeOperator
CCP Goliath wrote:
Things are getting a bit heated in this thread, so I wanted to say that while I can't give a definitive answer to the question of this behaviour changing or not, I can promise to raise it tomorrow morning with the design guys and get an answer for you.



Guess no one reported that this was going on before now.

But this trick clearly runs counter to good gameplay.

Since all thats left is you always have to be in a fleet that can kill something in less then one min regardless of what it is.

**Space wizards are real, they can make 10058 votes vanish. "and for a moment i hurd 10k goons cry out, then silence" **

Messoroz
AQUILA INC
Verge of Collapse
#127 - 2012-03-25 18:17:47 UTC
Only ones complaining are those who sit on gates 23/7 hoping for kills. I for one have never had the issue with something logoffskiing when they had no aggression.
RougeOperator
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#128 - 2012-03-25 18:34:47 UTC
Messoroz wrote:
Only ones complaining are those who sit on gates 23/7 hoping for kills. I for one have never had the issue with something logoffskiing when they had no aggression.



Bull and Crap.

Tell another lie.

**Space wizards are real, they can make 10058 votes vanish. "and for a moment i hurd 10k goons cry out, then silence" **

Roime
Shiva Furnace
#129 - 2012-03-25 18:47:13 UTC
You know, after all this poopslinging I'm going to side by you and present a simple fix that would not affect legit use of logging off, or the current timers:

In addition to disabling the key shortcut and forcing the modal popup, you would get the standard popup when trying to log off under gate cloak:

"The cloaking you are doing prevents you from performing this action." (sp)

You'd just need to break your gate cloak, and then go through the same hoops, opening a tiny window for tackler to aggress the Mr. Logoffski.



.

Kyn Kailata
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#130 - 2012-03-25 18:57:09 UTC
what i dont get is that you say you planed it for an hour so that he would not do this exact thing. but why would he scout himself into local and then just log of? you did your little tarp wrong, simple as. i can agree that its a gay mechanic but there is really no way to remove it without punishing other people. can you imagine how many would die just becuse they had to go and logged of in a stationles lowsec or 0.0 system only to get scaned 10min later. seriously tho, you could have killed that guy if your redemer guy didnt decloak to early...
killorbekilled TBE
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#131 - 2012-03-25 19:00:16 UTC
all i saw was a defencless boat own an entire fleet and then the fleet crying **** on the forums

:)

Simi Kusoni
HelloKittyFanclub
#132 - 2012-03-25 19:13:26 UTC
CCP Goliath wrote:
Things are getting a bit heated in this thread, so I wanted to say that while I can't give a definitive answer to the question of this behaviour changing or not, I can promise to raise it tomorrow morning with the design guys and get an answer for you.

Nice, thank you :)

How about giving people 5 seconds aggression for logging off as a fix? Any player aggression that occurs in that time would extend the aggression timer, and the ship would not disappear. People genuinely disconnecting would still vanish within a minute, unless they were five seconds away from being pointed or attacked.

Also, I know 5 seconds is a short time, but it's long enough to attack a ship as it warps off gate, and it's short enough that you can't de-cloak a recon and take advantage if you witness a player disconnect. I think the impact of such a change would be minimal, I may be missing something though.

(Knowing Eve, I'm probably missing something. Damn you lovable exploit finding bastads.)

[center]"I don't troll, I just give overly blunt responses that annoy people who are wrong but don't want to admit it. It's not my fault that people have sensitive feelings"  -MXZF[/center]

Taihbea
Doomheim
#133 - 2012-03-25 19:17:23 UTC
RougeOperator wrote:
Messoroz wrote:
Only ones complaining are those who sit on gates 23/7 hoping for kills. I for one have never had the issue with something logoffskiing when they had no aggression.



Bull and Crap.

Tell another lie.


Dude you have some serious "WTF I suck and imma cry for a NERFZOR on dah FORUMZ" issues.

Go **** yourself you noob and learn to play.
Skydell
Bad Girl Posse
Somethin Awfull Forums
#134 - 2012-03-25 19:28:41 UTC
I can appreciate the disgust of being that close and having it blink out but serious, you guys melted that ship fast. He fluked a logoffski. If you guys had been 2 more Oracle stong he wouldn't have made it.

I doubt the guy expected his Provi to live, that's the thing. He jumped through, saw the gate camp and just closed the client. I would have done the same. I don't think it was a tactical attempt to save his ship. He just didn't want to watch it pop knowing he wasn't going to be able to do anything about it.
Gogela
Krigmakt Elite
Safety.
#135 - 2012-03-25 19:29:48 UTC
Obviously the freighter should be dead... I'm sorry for your loss pirates... that was robbery (...or rather it should have been!). Shocked

Signatures should be used responsibly...

Simi Kusoni
HelloKittyFanclub
#136 - 2012-03-25 19:32:42 UTC
Skydell wrote:
I doubt the guy expected his Provi to live, that's the thing. He jumped through, saw the gate camp and just closed the client. I would have done the same. I don't think it was a tactical attempt to save his ship. He just didn't want to watch it pop knowing he wasn't going to be able to do anything about it.

Nah, it's a well known tactic. I've used it myself, and had it used on me too. Closing the client isn't a rage quit, it's your last hope of getting out.

[center]"I don't troll, I just give overly blunt responses that annoy people who are wrong but don't want to admit it. It's not my fault that people have sensitive feelings"  -MXZF[/center]

Creat Posudol
German Oldies
#137 - 2012-03-25 19:52:35 UTC
Simi Kusoni wrote:
Skydell wrote:
I doubt the guy expected his Provi to live, that's the thing. He jumped through, saw the gate camp and just closed the client. I would have done the same. I don't think it was a tactical attempt to save his ship. He just didn't want to watch it pop knowing he wasn't going to be able to do anything about it.

Nah, it's a well known tactic. I've used it myself, and had it used on me too. Closing the client isn't a rage quit, it's your last hope of getting out.

That in itself is a problem. Closing the client should NEVER be a better option than to stay in the game. It shouldn't provide safety, it should be worse (if possible) to just close the client. Especially in a situation where you know you will lose your ship (and content) closing the client shouldn't provide a glimmer of hope for you to keep it, it just doesn't make any sense...
Simi Kusoni
HelloKittyFanclub
#138 - 2012-03-25 19:54:34 UTC
Creat Posudol wrote:
Simi Kusoni wrote:
Skydell wrote:
I doubt the guy expected his Provi to live, that's the thing. He jumped through, saw the gate camp and just closed the client. I would have done the same. I don't think it was a tactical attempt to save his ship. He just didn't want to watch it pop knowing he wasn't going to be able to do anything about it.

Nah, it's a well known tactic. I've used it myself, and had it used on me too. Closing the client isn't a rage quit, it's your last hope of getting out.

That in itself is a problem. Closing the client should NEVER be a better option than to stay in the game. It shouldn't provide safety, it should be worse (if possible) to just close the client. Especially in a situation where you know you will lose your ship (and content) closing the client shouldn't provide a glimmer of hope for you to keep it, it just doesn't make any sense...

I know, I was just pointing out that it wasn't a case of rage quitting Blink

[center]"I don't troll, I just give overly blunt responses that annoy people who are wrong but don't want to admit it. It's not my fault that people have sensitive feelings"  -MXZF[/center]

Gyozshil154
Protocision Industries
#139 - 2012-03-25 20:03:54 UTC
BeanBagKing wrote:
Goliath, if you're considering raising the issue tomorrow there's only one thing that I think should be brought up. That is jumping through a gate to clear aggression. It seems like a bad mechanic to me. All too often we've had someone jump into us, we've aggressed him and had him burn back to the gate, jump through, and log off.



Because there are no ways in the game to slow people down.
Simi Kusoni
HelloKittyFanclub
#140 - 2012-03-25 20:36:47 UTC
Gyozshil154 wrote:
BeanBagKing wrote:
Goliath, if you're considering raising the issue tomorrow there's only one thing that I think should be brought up. That is jumping through a gate to clear aggression. It seems like a bad mechanic to me. All too often we've had someone jump into us, we've aggressed him and had him burn back to the gate, jump through, and log off.

Because there are no ways in the game to slow people down.

That tactic also, you know, kind of doesn't work. Hate to break it to you bean bag king, but you could have scanned those guys down.

I'm also somewhat skeptical as to your claim that multiple people have done this too you. Whilst I'm certain there is an endless supply of idiots in Eve, that is a pretty stupid tactic for them to use.

[center]"I don't troll, I just give overly blunt responses that annoy people who are wrong but don't want to admit it. It's not my fault that people have sensitive feelings"  -MXZF[/center]