"The suggestion was not to remove the timer it was to reduce it."

Any reduction that makes it short enough for you to survive also makes it short enough for the cheaters to survive. Five minutes is pretty much the minimum acceptable timeout for something like a Trident. Consider the scenario where you're a lone Hound pilot with a drain blaster. You find a Trident and pin it down while you call in your friends to help. The timeout needs to be long enough for your friends to arrive and kill the Trident before it despawns.


"5 Minutes is a bit much to prevent the abuses of a few"

I disagree, PaKettle; the only people inconvenienced besides the cheaters are those who irresponsibly choose to play twitch combat online games over poor connections. Also, calling it "a bit much" does not jive with your request for an 80% reduction. Nor do I believe you're dumb enough to think that a one minute timeout would be adequate. If you think people should be able to logout to avoid combat, just man up and say so outright.

I don't think the majority should be imposed upon to satisfy the outrage of a few denied a kill by low life cheats. Manly enuff fer ya?

Sometimes you simply have to accept that theres no way to keep a person from cheating just as laws will never stop a criminal. Locks only work for honest people.

BTW - Don't we already have a way to extend the logout if a player is damaged?

(Did you really mean to claim people shouldn't play vo on their phone?)

Except in this case we do have a way to keep a person from cheating, and it works quite well.

"I don't think the majority should be imposed upon to satisfy the outrage of a few denied a kill by low life cheats. Manly enuff fer ya?"

Nope. You're still claiming to be speaking in defense of a fictional majority (even among mobile users, only a minority randomly disconnect). You're still failing to explain how your claim that the current timeout is "a bit" excessive justifies an 80% reduction. You're still failing to explain how a one-minute timer is remotely adequate when it comes to a ship that takes multiple minutes to destroy. In short, you are still doing exactly what I complained about: masking your apparent desire to cheat behind bogus arguments intended to make it look like you're defending the playerbase from the overzealous.

"BTW - Don't we already have a way to extend the logout if a player is damaged?"

Damaging somebody interrupts the logout timer, but it does not delay their ship from despawning if they kill the game or pull out their network cable. If you mean to suggest that the devs should change it so that damaging somebody who is on the disconnect timer will cause their ship to persist so long as damage continues, that would be something I could get behind. If that were done and if PCB shots counted as damage for the purpose of timer resets, then it would acceptable to reduce the timeout.

Then we do agree ... a 1 minute timer is enough with an extension if damaged.

Savet if it worked well then why are others complaining about it?... :}

Pakettle, it seems like you are the only one with the +1. Everyone else is against it. I think 5 minutes is too short considering all the sectors to search to blow it up or even to have friends fly in form many systems away to coordinate an attack if the captain reconnects.. Now, the minimum should be less than an hour for sure, but, for those that like to hunt hiding things, 5 minutes is too short.

How many mobile trident pilots are there to be inconvenienced? And why is it taking you 5 minutes to log back in and fight the battle for your ship?

Then we do agree ... a 1 minute timer is enough with an extension if damaged.

Savet if it worked well then why are others complaining about it?... :}

Item 1.: If the persistence timer extends with damage, then there is no functional benefit to reducing the persistence timer as the people complaining are complaining because they lose ships when disconnected.

Item 2: People will complain about anything. The fact that people are complaining because their ship persists and takes damage when they disconnect in space means it is working EXACTLY as intended and people need to accept the mechanics of an online game.

Wasn't the goal to have 100% persistence of all ships? Obviously some common sense removals need to be made like players who quit or haven't logged back in in over a day / week. If the errant ship hasn't been dealt with by the player base.

I am sympathetic to players dealing with connection issues. I also sympathize with the criminal community, having been among their ranks a time or two. To me I think that is a challenge that the player has to mitigate for themselves. Which is no different than what I did by placing Elmo out of range in Latos H2 to spot for my XC runs of fcp and rba's when building my trident in order to reduce the risk of losing a substantial amount of 'work'.

To me I think that is a challenge that the player has to mitigate for themselves. Which is no different than what I did by placing Elmo out of range in Latos H2 to spot for my XC runs of fcp and rba's when building my trident in order to reduce the risk of losing a substantial amount of 'work'.

And how exactly does a spotting bot help mitigate lagging issues in a dogfight?

My point is that we can limit our exposure to risk. The choice to do so is up to the individual player. If the disconnects are once a month or less frequent, then having something in place may not justify the effort. If they are several times a week, then it might be worth having a plan in place to limit that exposure when entering an area known to be risky. A spotter is just an example. There are other options a player might take to protect their assets.

There are other options a player might take to protect their assets.

Besides resorting to a sketchy spy network plugin written by TGFT or launching your own spotting bots, the only truly reliable options:

* Move to USA and buy better internet. OR

* Stop playing altogether.

None of those actually help for people who like dogfighting and want to have a fair chance in it.

Any other concrete ideas? No? That was very helpful, Captain Fluffy!

The OP was not about dogfights.

Joyless joker, your comments are not respectful and do not contribute to the suggestion. Mods must be asleep.

Can we have something like this yet? With the amount of Goliaths in space this is becoming a real problem. At least can the capship persist a little after /logoff ? Maybe 5 minutes, it is not unreasonable. Or just make it so you cannot logoff while taking damage.

I don't know, but people loggin out to protect a ship they are supposed to be "testing" has really annoyed the heck out of me.

Not until the other Capitol stations receive capship docking bays. I don't want to require someone to spend half an hour flying somewhere, just to safely log off.

Current Goliaths will be repo'd before long, when the manufacturing missions go in.

I am at GDC and will be highly sporadic in my responses this week.

Can we just have the no logoff while damage is incoming thingy then? Let us face it, people were doing this before the Goliath was so easy to obtain, hence this thread.

[edit]

Enjoy!

I'll have Ray look at it, but obviously he's pretty busy already.