Rejoin when disconnecting

[CommunistCactus]

why do you assume this is eggwars?
why do you assume you have an egg?

In some cases this will be the situation, therefore this command isn't 100% pointless and will help people. Why do you still dislike it so much when it helps people?

why do you assume that players are not going to exploit this

I do not understand how you think players will exploit this, since there isn't anything to exploit.

Players "exploiting" this command for AFKing purposes not an issue.

How will they exploit it?

it would benefit them because they are only doing it long enough so they get kicked then fix it

What's so beneficial about being kicked?

well you leave the whole game thus you get hurt very little because mobs don't attack mobs

Leaving the whole game creates a lot more negative circumstances.
-No gear (especially stupid to do in speedUHC)
-No idea what the circumstances will be when you return, ex. coming back outside the border, in the middle of a swarm of mobs.
-A very small chance of winning in general

Why do you think there are very few players sneaking in a hole the entire game?
Because it just would't make any sense to do this. Same goes for logging out.

If you still think exploiting this really is a problem there still is an easy way to fix it: replace the player with a "player" entity instead of a normal mob.
(In case you were wondering, no this isn't hard to code, watchdog and other anticheats use "player" entities so yes this is possible and not hard to implement)

then you aren't rejoining
you're just waiting

It's just 30 seconds. Why is this a problem?

Is, This, Better.

Yes, thanks.

Also I have never said anything about hackers rejoining @iCheeetah did.

Understood. That can go off the table then.

Then the thread creator thought of a solution which then defeats a large point of the purpose of the original idea since the anti-cheat kicks people who aren't hacking.

I agree with that. People should still be able to rejoin even after an anticheat kick.

even if you allowed for people who are kicked for hacking then a mob replaces them okay but most of the kicks for hacking are midway through PvP. Welp now your defenceless and practically screwed,

Not always. You have teammates that can protect you, and if it's eggwars and you still have an egg you're also not completely screwed.


In conclusion:
If I get it right your main arguments are that
1. This command isn't effective for most of the times and therefore the suggestion is useless
2. People can "exploit" it.
Is this correct?

 

[Injunction]

In some cases this will be the situation, therefore this command isn't 100% pointless and will help people. Why do you still dislike it so much when it helps people?

Because it allows many exploits

It's just 30 seconds. Why is this a problem?

Again in PvP
Disconnected waiting 30 seconds
Seriously if you aren't dead by then you are just lucky

Again they exploit it by disconnecting from the internet
Once they get kicked they reconnect and wait

Also for this
Leaving the whole game creates a lot more negative circumstances.
-No gear (especially stupid to do in speedUHC)
-No idea what the circumstances will be when you return, ex. coming back outside the border, in the middle of a swarm of mobs.
-A very small chance of winning in general

Why do you think there are very few players sneaking in a hole the entire game?
Because it just would't make any sense to do this. Same goes for logging out.

If you still think exploiting this really is a problem there still is an easy way to fix it: replace the player with a "player" entity instead of a normal mob.
(In case you were wondering, no this isn't hard to code, watchdog and other anticheats use "player" entities so yes this is possible and not hard to implement)

Another problem is the fact that getting kicked ever will have these same effects and negativities lack of gear
Small chance of winning
& many more

Also it would be fairly hard to code being watchdog had this coded in prior to the release of it
Appose to Sentinel which curently doesn't

 

[CommunistCactus]

Because it allows many exploits

Such as? (No, AFKing is not an exploit, it's dumb)

Again in PvP
Disconnected waiting 30 seconds
Seriously if you aren't dead by then you are just lucky

Not ALL kicks happen while in pvp you know....

Again they exploit it by disconnecting from the internet
Once they get kicked they reconnect and wait

What advantage do they get by this? I can only see negatives.

Also it would be fairly hard to code being watchdog had this coded in prior to the release of it
Appose to Sentinel which curently doesn't

I'm not talking about Sentinel here, but this command suggestion which has not been coded yet.

 

[Injunction]

A large majority of kicks do happen in PvP
Whcich then ruins the point of this

Also if not in PvP about to be attacked is another

Also stop mentioning AFK kicks I never said anything about those

If you seem to only see the negatives in disconnecting kicks then I don't see your logic In having a timer before you can rejoin

The Entire suggestion just keeps looping onto itself
The /rejoin paradox dang it

 

[CommunistCactus]

A large majority of kicks do happen in PvP
Whcich then ruins the point of this

It might not help for the large majority but that doesn't mean the whole point is ruined. How many times do I have to repeat this?

If you seem to only see the negatives in disconnecting kicks then I don't see your logic In having a timer before you can rejoin

Let me repeat why I wanted a timer:
"First the hacker needs to log in, then type the command, then load the game and only then is fully back. You can easily kill the hacker in that time. If you still consider it a problem, putting a delay on coming back would also solve it.
So for example you get kicked, but need to wait 30 seconds before rejoining."

I see no point in not adding this, you still haven't properly explained why this suggestion is bad except "it won't work for the majority" which is not a valid point.
I'm done talking. I've explained everything now, you just keep using the same arguments where I already explained are not an issue, therefore I'm just going away from this suggestion. Might just make one myself on a later date.