Jump to content

Question about logging out/in


Recommended Posts

I would think that RDMS would stop someone from getting on the ship as a stowaway anyways. anyways. I like 2b and maybe after x time you become solid like in ark and can be killed. Gives someone time to log back on and log off in a proper area (if we need to do that)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Kurock said:

If you log out on a construct you will log back in on that same construct. This is great because the Internet is not always stable with disconnects happening at any moment. 

But why is this abusable? Jump onto any construct and log out. Now that person can be taken anywhere that construct goes and is undetectable. An invisible stowaway which could just be hitching a ride or have more nefarious ideas.

 

The first question is does this warrant adding some mechanism to prevent the invisible stowaway problem? The 95% case is one where players have the right to be on the ship so is it really a problem? Adding a mechanism, no matter how small, takes away from dev time in which another feature could be built.

 

But, for arguments sake, let's say it *is* a problem so how could it be "fixed" to add gameplay opportunities rather than removing them?

 

1) No rights, no logout. RDMS dictates whether logging off is allowed on the construct. If not, the person is shunted into the planet (or space) outside the construct. This doesn't switch off stowaways since a hacker could get around the RDMS (potentially), but it does make it much more difficult for long hauls since they player must be logged in the entire time.

 

2) Detection. Part 2 and 3 are meant to be used together.

a) Make them visible. After logging out a hologram (or ghost) of the player is left behind. Perhaps this could be for a short amount of time before 2b needs to be used.

b.) Make them detectable. A special hand held or construct wide scanner could be used to give a count of ghosts and eventually, though gameplay, pinpoint them. Think of this as the stowaway trying to hide, perhaps this could get bonuses from stealth skills to hide and likewise the scanner could get bonuses from scanning skills to detect.

 

3) Action after detection. After detecting a ghost using 2 above, what can a person do about it?

a.) Nothing. Being able to do anything to stowaways is abusable in its own right.

b.) Move em. The owner of the ship (with the correct rights) can boot the ghost out of the construct. Potentially into space. This is potentially a death sentence.

c.) Kill em and be done with it. They won't stowaway on your ship again.

d.) Confinement. A holding area could be placed on larger constructs. This is not imprisonment: A person could still shoot their way out or kill themselves. It does serve as a way to give the stowaway a chance to have a talk first.

 

My personal preference would be 2b and then the ability to choose any of the 3's in a case by case basis.

 

What would you choose?

I agree almost completely with 1, 2 is an decent idea but i don't think it solves all the problems and 3b is good with some exceptions for logged off avatars on constructs on constructs. The only change i would make to 1 is that your avatar simple stays in a afk state(sitting) and killable if you do not have rights to the construct possibly for some set amount of time. The idea of a time limited persistent avatar in the game is required, cant just have people alt f4 and instantly ghost.

 

To me login and logout has so much more depth. If it was just the stowaway issue i think 2b would be fine. However the issue has so many more little problems with it like: I'm attacking a base, the members of that base have all their alts logged out in groups around the base. I now have to account for what basically amounts to phantoms because i cant know which detectable player logins are real and which are just alts. I have to respect that a group of players COULD log in behind me in some room my org and I have already cleared. Since I am attacking I don't have the right to remove these logged out players so that's not an option either. In my eyes you have to have designated login areas/elements for constructs, its the only real way to solve that problem that 2 brings up in all cases.

 

Something else to consider is what happens to the weight of a player logged off on a construct. In theory if i can log off on your construct and there is no way to remove me(3a) I can literally add weight to your ship that you can never remove until I choose to log in and walk away or i guess you destroy your ship?. If you don't handle logged off player weight, with enough players, you can move unlimited cargo on a tiny ship by just getting 50 players with max weight logged off on your ship. There has to be some way to account for it and see it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't see defenders spawning behind an attacking force as a problem since it takes preparation and coordination to even make it feasible. If they pull that off, kudos. (Each account has three characters to play with, this could be a use for those extra ones characters).

 

With nanopacks, I am not so sure there will be much issue with weight so the second scenario seems more likely. But if a persons pack is limited then while possible, this is simply not as efficient as having a large cargo container.

 

The biggest issue with making suggestions is that we cannot know the full picture of all how all the mechanics interact with each other. It's all guess work and very easy to raise "what if" counter scenarios. It is less a case of 2b or not 2b but whether the "invisible stowaway" is a problem at all. That said, theory-crafting is always fun so keep the suggestions coming ;) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cryopods. 

 

If a player disconnects in a multi-crew ship (ie moving construct not a cockpit) the game checks to see if the avatar has RDMS for a Cryo-pod (range within reason) on the construct and automatically deposits their avatar into the cryo-pod.

 

Regardless if a cryo-pod is found if the avatar logs back in within 3-5 minutes they will be where they logged off on the construct.

 

If they don't log off in a cryo-pod and don't return they are left in space in an escape pod (if in space) where they logged off. 

 

If the ship/cryo-pod is destroyed in that 3-5 minute timer the avatar stored is killed (inventory loss/effect of death/skill loss)

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Logoff traps are common in eve and to me such a tactic isn't an exploit or unwanted, but adds depth, gameplay and tactics. It has to be seen if it's too much for DU (fps, more options as in eve, could be bad).

 

I'd go with:

- make logged off players detectable by some scanners (2b)

- do nothing then (3a)

 

because:

 

3b/c are abuseable (switch rights on the fly and the new captains just boots everyone without giving them a chance to get to safety / outright killing them makes them just lose everything they have on person and no chance of getting to safety)

3d could work but isn't as good to me as 3a, because of balance issues.

 

Since you have no clue (just an estimate) when that player will login again, you could essentially prepare a death trap with that prison (3d). Some will (perhaps? most unlikely?) speak to them first and negotiate but most people only want to kill such passengers anyway to get rid of them ASAP.

To prevent that guy to escape you'd need to have guards 24/7 anyhow.

 

Same with 3a but with a difference (which is why i like this more): you have to watch him, scan for him and make sure he's still offline. This will make sure your crew double checks if he's still offline because he will most likely know that he's the only one left from his team. And since you can't confine him, he's very dangerous. He has a chance to escape if he is lucky. That's why i prefer this option

 

To me a combo of 2b and 3a is the best. A buyer knows if there are people still logged off, a seller could prepare a trap (if those guys have a high enough stealth skill) and if you capture a vessel you get intense gameplay until the last one is killed

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Personally i'd like it to be so that all with access to the ships RDSM keeps the scripts working. Always one player in the e crew needs to be on to let the ship keep moving. Otherwise it stops. Also logged out players stay in correlation to the ships core unit. If the ship is destroyed they get the choice to turn up at the closest ress node they have access to or the arkship, letting allied ress ships and stations cover if their ship is destroyed while logged out. For those who want to abuse the logging in after selling or losing a ship to pirates. Selling it or replacing the core unit should in both cases reset login positioning of logged out crew and they get the same options i mentioned earlier. 

 

Sorry for poor structure, wrote it on my phone. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is a difficult subject, because we don't want people to get abused when they was careful, and we don't want offline people to become a problem.

 

I have a solution that I think will resolve all these problems in a realistic way. It's good to see that some of you already proposed some parts of this solution.
Of course, I assume that people disconnecting in a construct should reconnect in the same construct, whether the construct has moved or not.

 

- We already know that we should not teleport offline people because it would be abused (except for death = RN).
- We also should not allow to build where people are diconnected, because they would reconnect in a wall.
- And we also should not force people to disconnect in specific area, because disconnections can happen anywhere/anytime. (and the RDMS already allow you to go in places you are not welcome)

 

So, we need a way to see where people are disconnected, and we need to be able to do something about them.

 

So, my proposal is :

 1. When a player disconnect, he let an invisible signature (or ghost) in the current voxel grid.

 

 2. Online players can see these ghosts only when activating an option (or skill) and depending on their RDMS rights. (see rules in next points) So you don't see hundreds of ghosts all the time.

 

 3. Online players can move or kill these ghosts depending on their RDMS rights. (see rules in next points) We should keep it realistic, so if you disconnect in a dangerous area, it is normal that you can be killed.

 

 4. When a player move or kill a ghost, the ghost keep a mark. So when reconnecting, the player will have a message telling "Player1 killed you" or "Player2 moved you". This will avoid any mystery about what happend to your ghost. If you're not carefull enough, players can abuse of your ghost, but you will know who did it.

 

 5. If you disconnect in a safe zone, your ghost can only be seen and moved inside the safe zone by the owners of the zone where you stand.

 

 6. If you are the owner of a construct, you have all the rights to see and move the ghosts inside it. This solve the problem of the stowaway, and doesn't stop him from trying. Before taking off your ship, you may want to check if there is no intruders on board. If you find a ghost that has no rights on this construct, you can also kill it.

 

 7. You cannot build on a ghost because he would reconnect in a wall. But if you have the right to build in this construct, you can see and move the ghost somewhere else.

 

 8. If something happen to the blocks where your ghost is, you suffer the damages. For example, if you are offline in a big ship during a battle, and the ship have an explosion in the corridor where your ghost is standing, you are more likely dead. Another example, if you disconnect on a landing plateform, and a ship land just on your ghost, you die, crushed by the ship. (IRL you don't go to sleep on a runway, so ingame don't be stupid as well).

 

 9. If you attack an ennemi base, it would be unrealistic that people can reconnect in a part that you have secured. But you have no rights in an ennemi base. So it would be good to implement a skill allowing you to detect ghosts and to move or kill them. But all this depend on the PvP gameplay that is not defined yet.

 

All these points make the online/offline concept more realistic and push you to be more careful about where you will disconnect. If you are not careful, or if you don't choose well your friends, people can still abuse yourself.

 

PS : I volontarily skipped the part disconnect when flaged PvP, maybe a timer before disconnect is a good idea, but I think it's another subject.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, Elildar said:

It is a difficult subject, because we don't want people to get abused when they was careful, and we don't want offline people to become a problem.

 

I have a solution that I think will resolve all these problems in a realistic way. It's good to see that some of you already proposed some parts of this solution.
Of course, I assume that people disconnecting in a construct should reconnect in the same construct, whether the construct has moved or not.

 

- We already know that we should not teleport offline people because it would be abused (except for death = RN).
- We also should not allow to build where people are diconnected, because they would reconnect in a wall.
- And we also should not force people to disconnect in specific area, because disconnections can happen anywhere/anytime. (and the RDMS already allow you to go in places you are not welcome)

 

So, we need a way to see where people are disconnected, and we need to be able to do something about them.

 

So, my proposal is :

 1. When a player disconnect, he let an invisible signature (or ghost) in the current voxel grid.

 

 2. Online players can see these ghosts only when activating an option (or skill) and depending on their RDMS rights. (see rules in next points) So you don't see hundreds of ghosts all the time.

 

 3. Online players can move or kill these ghosts depending on their RDMS rights. (see rules in next points) We should keep it realistic, so if you disconnect in a dangerous area, it is normal that you can be killed.

 

 4. When a player move or kill a ghost, the ghost keep a mark. So when reconnecting, the player will have a message telling "Player1 killed you" or "Player2 moved you". This will avoid any mystery about what happend to your ghost. If you're not carefull enough, players can abuse of your ghost, but you will know who did it.

 

 5. If you disconnect in a safe zone, your ghost can only be seen and moved inside the safe zone by the owners of the zone where you stand.

 

 6. If you are the owner of a construct, you have all the rights to see and move the ghosts inside it. This solve the problem of the stowaway, and doesn't stop him from trying. Before taking off your ship, you may want to check if there is no intruders on board. If you find a ghost that has no rights on this construct, you can also kill it.

 

 7. You cannot build on a ghost because he would reconnect in a wall. But if you have the right to build in this construct, you can see and move the ghost somewhere else.

 

 8. If something happen to the blocks where your ghost is, you suffer the damages. For example, if you are offline in a big ship during a battle, and the ship have an explosion in the corridor where your ghost is standing, you are more likely dead. Another example, if you disconnect on a landing plateform, and a ship land just on your ghost, you die, crushed by the ship. (IRL you don't go to sleep on a runway, so ingame don't be stupid as well).

 

 9. If you attack an ennemi base, it would be unrealistic that people can reconnect in a part that you have secured. But you have no rights in an ennemi base. So it would be good to implement a skill allowing you to detect ghosts and to move or kill them. But all this depend on the PvP gameplay that is not defined yet.

 

All these points make the online/offline concept more realistic and push you to be more careful about where you will disconnect. If you are not careful, or if you don't choose well your friends, people can still abuse yourself.

 

PS : I volontarily skipped the part disconnect when flaged PvP, maybe a timer before disconnect is a good idea, but I think it's another subject.

 

This is very similar to what i was thinking. I feel like there will always be a trade off but i would be ok with this system. Adding to it, if there is a ghost in the game it could also handle player weight on constructs and handles moving players to a large construct if they logged off on a smaller attached construct; such as after a battle a fighter lands on a large ship and the pilot forgets to get out of the ship before logging off(this person is an ally). Now you can move him to the large construct instead of kicking him from the small fighter into the void of space. I still do not like the idea of log in traps but this system has at least some level of protection against it which is really all I personally want. I don't like people being able to take advantage of the fact that for some silly reason they exist in some untouchable pocket dimension when they log off, this system prevents thats so ill take it.

 

Kudos!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't like the idea of killing offline players at all, that's just bad gameplay - a guy who disconnected/prepares a logoff trap/just has no time to log in loses all his stuff on person and has 0% chance to avoid it

Link to comment
Share on other sites

English (Translator used)

 

Hello Lethys,
Where is your pirate enthusiasm a lot of victims who do not resist. Or are you only afraid of your prey?

 

 

German (orginal)

 

Hallo Lethys,

wo ist dein Piraten Enthusiasmus jede Menge Opfer die sich nicht wehren. Oder hast Du nur Angst um deine Beute ?

 

 

mfG Die Waldfee

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, huschhusch said:

English (Translator used)

 

Hello Lethys,
Where is your pirate enthusiasm a lot of victims who do not resist. Or are you only afraid of your prey?

 

It's NEVER fun for anyone and only makes very bad gameplay and "pvp" if the other guy can't defend himself. There's no fun to be gained from shooting offline players. It's just tedious, bad, boring and not immersive. Better to scan for them and know that x ppl are on board of the ship (IF you even found everybody - depending on his skills) so you have to watch while you're in there

 

I don't want this game to be fun for one certain group, I want this game to be fun for everyone - a pirate has to point that out, shocker

Link to comment
Share on other sites

English (Translator used)

 

Hello Lethys,
Nice to hear that you are a friendly pirate, you are satisfied with 10% or you always want everything (including life).

 

 

German (orginal)

 

Hallo Lethys,

schön zu hören das Du ein freundlicher Pirat bist, gibst Du dich mit 10% zufrieden oder willst Du immer alles (inclusive Leben).

 

 

mfG Die Waldfee

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, huschhusch said:

English (Translator used)

 

Hello Lethys,
Nice to hear that you are a friendly reasonable pirate, you are satisfied with 100% or you always want everything (including life).

 

fixed it

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Lethys said:

Don't like the idea of killing offline players at all, that's just bad gameplay - a guy who disconnected/prepares a logoff trap/just has no time to log in loses all his stuff on person and has 0% chance to avoid it

I guess this is just where you and I disagree. I think giving offline players some magic immunity will open the door to huge abuses with stowaway issues, log in traps, or just plain trolling. I would say it needs to be a combination of protected offline players for the correct reasons(in their own base or in neutral areas on a planet), and protect online players for the correct reasons or not give offline players some massive level of protection. I feel like this is more important in DU because you will always be able to lose valuables when you are offline. Constructs and bases will be able to be attacked when you are offline and that has far more value then a players body.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

How about beds/cryopods? Go to your pod when you are finished kind of deal. That way you add more things like, hotels making crew quarters becomes important to large ships and stations. It also gives large ships crew capacities.

 

It does raise the issue of the actual task of going to your bed. What if it's an emergency... and you have to go.

Maybe add like "home scrolls" that you have to craft. Which when are consumed, it logs you off right then and there, then teleports your character back to the last pod you slept in. Then give you a small penalty for using it to prevent it from being abused.

 

There would have to be private and public beds. For instance, if you sleep at a hotel, and leave. You shouldn't be able to use the "Home Scroll" to go back to that hotel bed. Instead it would teleport you to your own private cryopod/bed.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

logout on a foreign construct, log back in in a jail cell on that construct.

LMAO ... since players have no edit rights to the construct that player could be held indefinitely in that cell ... not a bug much ... honest!

I like the "you can't logout on a construct you don't own" approach, if you get disconnected you log back on in the nearest construct you do own or th nearest stellar body like a planet or moon.

 

That might leave you stranded though ... depending on game mechanics. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm going to advocate totally hard-core.

Your Avatar never leaves the game world.

 

You can go to a safe zone, you can hide, you can have defenses, you can have alliances, but whatever can happen to you while online can happen while offline.

 

BUT - you do get an offline player AI. You can set actions - run, hide, fight, call for help. You can set communication to initiate - and communication responses.

If you don't log off or are disconnected in a place you don't want to be your Avatar basically autopilots itself to the place you have set it to go.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Captain_Hilts said:

I'm going to advocate totally hard-core.

Your Avatar never leaves the game world.

 

You can go to a safe zone, you can hide, you can have defenses, you can have alliances, but whatever can happen to you while online can happen while offline.

 

BUT - you do get an offline player AI. You can set actions - run, hide, fight, call for help. You can set communication to initiate - and communication responses.

If you don't log off or are disconnected in a place you don't want to be your Avatar basically autopilots itself to the place you have set it to go.

That requires path-finding in a world in which path-finding is hell. It's better just to have you log off as normal. I recommend Kurock's idea. Remember that moderation is key, swinging too far in a certain direction (harcore/softcore as an example) would not work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...