Forums » Suggestions
Silly Ore. Roids don't explode. If they did, I would of course shoot them too. I am in full support of destructible roid suggestions.
Same goes for stations.
Same goes for stations.
The issue isn't that people want to shoot unmanned targets, or that people can escape, but rather that logging out is a viable escape mechanism and that varying mechanisms for different ships create problems. One consistent approach is better and more supportable, and it removes a nonrealistic escape mechanism. So far the only detractors from this suggestion seem to oppose it only because it is situationally beneficial to pirates, which doesn't make a lot of sense as it universally benefits anyone engaged in combat activities.
Savet, you're wasting your time arguing with the ones who oppose this good idea, because there is no real reason to oppose it. This would allow us to get rid of the countdown timer as well.
The detractors should realize it is their ***choice*** to leave their ship unattended (either by logging off, using a poor network connection, having old unreliable hardware or testing plugin that might have a bug).
The detractors should realize it is their ***choice*** to leave their ship unattended (either by logging off, using a poor network connection, having old unreliable hardware or testing plugin that might have a bug).
Having a poor network connection isn't a choice and neither is being disconnected.
I can support increasing the persistence of unmanned capships up to 15 minutes, but 1 hour is excessive.
I can support increasing the persistence of unmanned capships up to 15 minutes, but 1 hour is excessive.
Lets compromise, arf likes 15 minutes, Savet likes 1 hour
15 hours
+1
15 hours
+1
While I disagree that 1 hour is excessive, I appreciate the suggestion of 15 minutes. Let's meet in the middle at 30 minutes.
Bad network connections will kill you in the first 30 seconds of a disconnect in a hive combat situation. What we're really debating is what happens when I log out in latos h2 or edras b11, or when I find a quiet sector to log off in.
Bad network connections will kill you in the first 30 seconds of a disconnect in a hive combat situation. What we're really debating is what happens when I log out in latos h2 or edras b11, or when I find a quiet sector to log off in.
I'm guessing the prospect of keeping sectors awake for 30 minutes to 1 hour longer than they would otherwise be for accounts that log off is something the devs won't see as helpful. The vast majority of those people would never be found anyway. The small amount of logged out ships that you would be able to find and destroy compared to the amount of resources expended both to instantiate this suggestion and maintain it are hardly worth it in my opinion.
Do you really think that all ships in the entire universe should persist for 15 minutes just so you can make sure a single person you are pursuing can't log off to escape?
Do you really think that all ships in the entire universe should persist for 15 minutes just so you can make sure a single person you are pursuing can't log off to escape?
"I'm guessing the prospect of keeping sectors awake for 30 minutes to 1 hour longer than they would otherwise be for accounts that log off is something the devs won't see as helpful"....
lol, greenwall... other MMO's show the stuff you built in game longer than that. You build it, it's there till someone destroys it. This isn't supposed to be a single player game.
What would solve this... If sectors saved state when they went inactive!
@Arf "Having a poor network connection isn't a choice and neither is being disconnected."... sure it is. I bet most of those with poor connections have access to better connections or *choose* to log on with a questionable connection. If one of your guild members plays on airport connection while at work, his loss if he disconnects.
lol, greenwall... other MMO's show the stuff you built in game longer than that. You build it, it's there till someone destroys it. This isn't supposed to be a single player game.
What would solve this... If sectors saved state when they went inactive!
@Arf "Having a poor network connection isn't a choice and neither is being disconnected."... sure it is. I bet most of those with poor connections have access to better connections or *choose* to log on with a questionable connection. If one of your guild members plays on airport connection while at work, his loss if he disconnects.
There definitely needs to be a minimum persistence. It is game breaking imo that someone can log out in space to avoid conflict. 5 minutes for regular ships is satisfactory for me.
More than an hour and you get reverse greifers logging off in monitored sectors so that they can tank players standing by letting their ships be destroyed unless this is something that is designed against.
I don't really care how long the persistence is. There needs to be at least a bare minimum.
More than an hour and you get reverse greifers logging off in monitored sectors so that they can tank players standing by letting their ships be destroyed unless this is something that is designed against.
I don't really care how long the persistence is. There needs to be at least a bare minimum.
The sector alivedness the devs worry about are capital and training sectors. If people are there, persistence won't add to or detract from resources. This still remains the debate about logging off under pursuit or in quiet sectors.
Savet, since turret health isn't saved at conq stations, they should worry about that, too!
That's a separate situation in idle sectors. This is sectors with abandoned ships.
I will never support 100% persistent ships in open space, except possibly capital ships.
I understand the many reasons people want ships to remain in space, and most of those reasons are short-sighted and selfish in my opinion.
As ARF has already mentioned a poor network connection should not be a reason to lose the efforts of possibly hours of hard work.
This game already sort of tracks when a person is in combat, as is evidenced by the increased logoff timer if they've been shot recently. However, I feel there is room to compromise even more. I think if we borrow and tweak the rest mechanic from The Elder Scrolls series a sufficiently punitive yet not terribly restrictive alternative can be reached.
For those not aware, TES won't allow you to rest if there are hostiles nearby. In this case resting would become logging off. A straight across implementation would merely check the radar for hostiles and then either not allow a logoff, or warn that logging off in this situation will leave you vulnerable in space for a period of time (e.g. 5 minutes).
The big problem with this is how do you best determine what a hostile is? The current default hostile detection system isn't adequate to everyone's needs. It's also possible to modify this system via plugins (which is not a bad thing in and of itself). However, since this would require a specific state to be set and monitored on the server, something trusted would be necessary.
I understand the many reasons people want ships to remain in space, and most of those reasons are short-sighted and selfish in my opinion.
As ARF has already mentioned a poor network connection should not be a reason to lose the efforts of possibly hours of hard work.
This game already sort of tracks when a person is in combat, as is evidenced by the increased logoff timer if they've been shot recently. However, I feel there is room to compromise even more. I think if we borrow and tweak the rest mechanic from The Elder Scrolls series a sufficiently punitive yet not terribly restrictive alternative can be reached.
For those not aware, TES won't allow you to rest if there are hostiles nearby. In this case resting would become logging off. A straight across implementation would merely check the radar for hostiles and then either not allow a logoff, or warn that logging off in this situation will leave you vulnerable in space for a period of time (e.g. 5 minutes).
The big problem with this is how do you best determine what a hostile is? The current default hostile detection system isn't adequate to everyone's needs. It's also possible to modify this system via plugins (which is not a bad thing in and of itself). However, since this would require a specific state to be set and monitored on the server, something trusted would be necessary.
"I'm guessing the prospect of keeping sectors awake for 30 minutes to 1 hour longer than they would otherwise be for accounts that log off is something the devs won't see as helpful."
There is no reason that the sector would need to be kept alive; the player isn't controlling their ship, so it could have it's position, health, and shield status saved as the sector is put to sleep, and just restore them when the sector wakes up (resetting the shield if appropriate based on the time since it was dropped). Obviously there are still some bugs in that system that would need to be fixed, but they need to be fixed anyway.
"More than an hour and you get reverse greifers logging off in monitored sectors so that they can tank players standing by letting their ships be destroyed unless this is something that is designed against."
Um, what? That's pure bullshit, dude. Does the mere presence of another ship force you to kill it despite the warning the game will give you about faction penalties? But yeah, I have no problem with there being limits beyond which the ship does get magically removed, as long as the limit is sufficiently high. (Better yet: have them towed or blown out of the sky by whichever NPCs are in charge of that sector. Apply towing or waste disposal fees as appropriate.)
"The big problem with this is how do you best determine what a hostile is?"
My advice for that system would be to not bother making a determination at all. Simply do not permit disappearing ships whenever another player's ship is within radar range, with no consideration for whether they're hostile or not.
There is no reason that the sector would need to be kept alive; the player isn't controlling their ship, so it could have it's position, health, and shield status saved as the sector is put to sleep, and just restore them when the sector wakes up (resetting the shield if appropriate based on the time since it was dropped). Obviously there are still some bugs in that system that would need to be fixed, but they need to be fixed anyway.
"More than an hour and you get reverse greifers logging off in monitored sectors so that they can tank players standing by letting their ships be destroyed unless this is something that is designed against."
Um, what? That's pure bullshit, dude. Does the mere presence of another ship force you to kill it despite the warning the game will give you about faction penalties? But yeah, I have no problem with there being limits beyond which the ship does get magically removed, as long as the limit is sufficiently high. (Better yet: have them towed or blown out of the sky by whichever NPCs are in charge of that sector. Apply towing or waste disposal fees as appropriate.)
"The big problem with this is how do you best determine what a hostile is?"
My advice for that system would be to not bother making a determination at all. Simply do not permit disappearing ships whenever another player's ship is within radar range, with no consideration for whether they're hostile or not.
@draugath -100 go back to tes and die there how ever they allow it, I'm not sure I ever seen you in a ship
@rin +100 I've seen rin in ships many times... we have fun together
lol, if you leave your ship in space, poor you! Log back in real quick if you care.
Edited to add... and if you damage a conq station turret, it should still be damaged when you return 6 minutes later
@rin +100 I've seen rin in ships many times... we have fun together
lol, if you leave your ship in space, poor you! Log back in real quick if you care.
Edited to add... and if you damage a conq station turret, it should still be damaged when you return 6 minutes later
My 2c
If the sector is empty you can logoff within the 10 seconds timer, if the sector is not empty you cannot logoff. Incoming players or npcs cancel the timer.
Empty = no npc, no other players.
Find an empty sector to logoff safely.
Loss of connection gives a 30mn persistence.
If the sector is empty you can logoff within the 10 seconds timer, if the sector is not empty you cannot logoff. Incoming players or npcs cancel the timer.
Empty = no npc, no other players.
Find an empty sector to logoff safely.
Loss of connection gives a 30mn persistence.
There are already players who allow themselves to be shot in monitored sectors for the sole purpose of tanking another players standing. I would call this at least passive aggressive behavior. Reverse griefing was just a convenient name for the practice which I thought described the practice.
@biretak: There is reason for you to be rude.
Draug, you confused me at:
"I will never support 100% persistent ships in open space, except possibly capital ships."
Were talking about limited duration persistence. What remains up in the air is how long said persistence lasts. It's almost universally agreed that a persistence duration longer than we currently have is desired.
"I will never support 100% persistent ships in open space, except possibly capital ships."
Were talking about limited duration persistence. What remains up in the air is how long said persistence lasts. It's almost universally agreed that a persistence duration longer than we currently have is desired.
+1 for the 1 hour persistence.
I think the only people who could be opposed to persistence in general are those exploiting it.
The "keeps the sector alive" argument doesn't really work. I often go afk in empty sectors rather than log off, but when I do log off while floating in space, i do it in sectors like WH sectors which often stay alive anyway.
The "reverse griefer" argument also doesn't work since this would already be occurring if it were feasible. Just floating around in Nyrius F6, waiting to be shot would happen a lot. Most players are just smart enough not to tank their standing. If they aren't, they'll learn on that first try.
The argument that intentionally logging off to avoid piracy or death isn't cheating is likewise nonsensical. Of course it's cheating. No rational person would see it otherwise.
In reality, a space ship wouldn't simply vanish from existence when its captain and crew decided they'd had enough of their enemy for the day. Logging off a Trident because you're confident that it will take longer than 5 minutes to deshield and destroy it is cheating, albeit a cheat that is not a violation of the game's rules.
I think the only people who could be opposed to persistence in general are those exploiting it.
The "keeps the sector alive" argument doesn't really work. I often go afk in empty sectors rather than log off, but when I do log off while floating in space, i do it in sectors like WH sectors which often stay alive anyway.
The "reverse griefer" argument also doesn't work since this would already be occurring if it were feasible. Just floating around in Nyrius F6, waiting to be shot would happen a lot. Most players are just smart enough not to tank their standing. If they aren't, they'll learn on that first try.
The argument that intentionally logging off to avoid piracy or death isn't cheating is likewise nonsensical. Of course it's cheating. No rational person would see it otherwise.
In reality, a space ship wouldn't simply vanish from existence when its captain and crew decided they'd had enough of their enemy for the day. Logging off a Trident because you're confident that it will take longer than 5 minutes to deshield and destroy it is cheating, albeit a cheat that is not a violation of the game's rules.