Modes The Open v Solo v Groups thread IV - Hotel California

[Jockey79]

I do accept the 'Graceful Exit' as accepted game play. Combat Loggers use means other than the included log out mechanism.

And some PvP'ers argue any form of exit after they start an encounter is "combat logging".
I've seen them demand the exit timer be increased to the point that a normal fight would be long over (so no point in trying to exit, as you're toast either way)

So it is back to what I've said all along, some people just want seals to club.

 

[AJW]

Can someone provide a link to a statement from the devs as to what exactly they consider "combat logging"? It seems to me that there is little common ground amongst some of the differing interpretations of what exactly it is in this thread.

 

[Jockey79]

.... are also complaining that the high-waking "exploit" has not been removed in accordance with their demands.

Aye, was gonig to add this in my last post and it slipped my mind.

Back to seal clubbing analogy for a week I think, as that is where we end up if we do what "some" PvP'ers want.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Can someone provide a link to a statement from the devs as to what exactly they consider "combat logging"? It seems to me that there is little common ground amongst some of the differing interpretations of what exactly it is in this thread.

Here it is:

For clarity’s sake, “combat logging” is when a Commander ungracefully exits the game (e.g. using ALT + F4 then shutting down the game process) to avoid defeat, destruction and damage.

Commanders might use this exploit the moment they are interdicted or the moment before they are about to be destroyed.

Although this is flagged primarily as a multiplayer concern, the issues (and solutions) apply equally to the single player game.

First things first: we do consider this an undesirable exploit. It’s not “part of the game”.

Because we don’t have an all powerful server running the moment-to-moment game play simulation, there is no infallible arbiter to take control of a player’s ship when they ungracefully exit.

So what we’re doing is logging telemetry that will help us detect when this exploit is explicitly being used.

Right now, all we’re doing (and have already started doing) is looking at and implementing methods of collecting and analysing data.

At some point, however, we will start to take action against Commanders using this exploit. I can only suggest that you should avoid using this exploit if you want to avoid any penalties issued for its use. I'll just repeat: please avoid combat logging - we're taking this issue very seriously.

 

[relayer]

seal clubbing

The first rule of Seal Club is, "ARP!ARP!ARP!ARP!ARP!ARP!ARP!ARP!"

and

is Seal Clubbing related to tubthumping?

 

[AJW]

Thanks, Robert Maynard. Any chance of a link though, so I can see the context?

 

[Jockey79]

In keeping with Leto's loophole mentality, ....

You know what other "rules" have not been made.... what I can or cannot do with my router.
And as my ISP are the only ones who can say what happens with the router, FD cannot make rules about it.

Not my fault if FD didn't pick a better multiplayer method that doesn't fall apart without uPnP enabled.
So I can play open, yet never ever see a single person - all because the game relies on uPnP so heavily.
What a shame, who never thought of that "loop hole" in the office eh?

Or we could argue that FD had uPnP turned off anyway when the game came out and it was complaints about folks not seeing each other that caused it to be turned on..... so perhaps the intent was to have it turned off, to help with that whole "rare and meaningful" aspect... as seeing someone was rare, and you felt over joyed when you did - so it was meaningful.

Until someone opened fire. Then you missed the loneliness

 

[Roybe]

In keeping with Leto's loophole mentality, how could Frontier not have foreseen Mobius? The size of Mobius is the sole aspect that Frontier could not have seen. This reduces your argument to a matter of scope, and an imaginary line. Would a group of 3 undermine FD's intent? A group of 8? Clearly, those were intended. As someone who argued technicalities for a living, let me point out that the above fails, because you can find no clear line. Before Mobius can be accused of undermining intent, you'll have to produce a clear and definitive line at which point it does so. Without such, it's just a vague and inconclusive argument with no real substance. You're left with oft mocked "I can't define it, but I know it when I see it." Justice Potter argument. Didn't work out well for Potter, and it doesn't hold water today.

I look at it this way....15 thousand people are able to play with one another in relative peace. This is a large enough chunk of the game to warrant it's own, dev supported, game mode....and I am sure that it would be used with much higher numbers as the vast majority of people had a PvE only choice on login. So why was this not provided? Either FDev was ignorant of the possibility of this group growing so large (not unlikely) or they do not want a PvE only mode in their game.

If they do not want a PvE mode in the game...then that is their intent...and Mobius breaks that intent. <there is an argument here for possible reasons why XBone STILL does not have a group mode...but that is coming Someday™>

The real problem the game now has is whether Mobius breaks their original intent or not...they are stuck with it. Any limitation put on groups will be a PR firestorm, unless they add a PvE only mode.

Although scope is part of the problem...the real advantage...for the vast majority of players is the possibility of meeting someone, randomly...the higher the number the higher the chance. The other advantage, not currently applied by Mobius, is the leverage a group this size would have within the galaxy, doing proper PvP...collecting PvE trophies together to move a singular, united, ideal of what the galaxy should look like.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Looking back, there was a proposal at one time in the DDF to allow the Private Group creator to select from a (very) basic rule-set:

How would you feel about the following system:

Only crimes committed against player ships can affect a players grouping.

When creating a group, the creator can select to either boot a player that earns a bounty automatically back to all-players (the next hyperspace jump after the bounty is earned), or choose to tolerate crimes on players in their group. The player who created the group can boot a player from it at a time of their choosing if a tolerated player is greifing.

This way if players have made a group to play in effectively co-op mode, and they want to be able to commit crimes with their friends, they can do so without compromising the sanctity of their private group.

 

[Roybe]

Thanks, Robert Maynard. Any chance of a link though, so I can see the context?

here's the link:

https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php?t=105778&p=1643389#post1643389

And just so you know if you click the double arrows on the right hand side it takes you to the quote.

 

[Jockey79]

Looking back, there was a proposal at one time in the DDF to allow the Private Group creator to select from a (very) basic rule-set:

Nice post !

Cannot +1, so have twice your own body weight in Cubeo bacon

 

[Cowboy Bats]

You know what other "rules" have not been made.... what I can or cannot do with my router.
And as my ISP are the only ones who can say what happens with the router, FD cannot make rules about it.

Not my fault if FD didn't pick a better multiplayer method that doesn't fall apart without uPnP enabled.
So I can play open, yet never ever see a single person - all because the game relies on uPnP so heavily.
What a shame, who never thought of that "loop hole" in the office eh?

That would mean that Leto is speaking with a forked tongue, because I clearly remember him saying that this was cheating, and given his newfound respect for juris ad ignorantium (not specifically proscribed) that simply cannot be.

 

[Jockey79]

That would mean that Leto is speaking with a forked tongue, because I clearly remember him saying that this was cheating, and given his newfound respect for juris ad ignorantium (not specifically proscribed) that simply cannot be.

Oh, well it cannot be cheating - there is not rules on how I use my router, or my PC, or my Firewall, or about running Netflix while playing, or stopping my family using the internet while I game.....

No that cannot be right, he could not have said it was cheating, not when there is no rule.

 

[Roybe]

My memory of the issues that Mobius experienced due to the increasing size of the Private Group were related to the ability to accept new members - while Frontier may have underestimated the popularity of a PvE group, there was no stated limit on the size of Private Groups.

Actually, reading the DDF...private groups were not meant to be permanent.

They were supposed to work more like Diablo 3 groups...where people were invited and if everyone left the group would dissolve. It is truly unfortunate that this vision was changed before release.

 

[cheeseheads]

according to this https://forums.robertsspaceindustri...-on-pvp-pve-private-servers-and-related-stuff ill be safe in star citizen

 

[fademist]

according to this https://forums.robertsspaceindustri...-on-pvp-pve-private-servers-and-related-stuff ill be safe in star citizen

lol some parts is litle strange ..
i wonder how they will do that:is to ALLOW griefing… but to build a game that prevents you from wanting to engage in it

 

[Jockey79]

lol some parts is litle strange ..
i wonder how they will do that:is to ALLOW griefing… but to build a game that prevents you from wanting to engage in it

A crime system that isn't a joke maybe?
One where it actually costs the "criminal" if they get caught by law enforcement - and not in a way where a friend can just collect / clear it for you.

 

[Roybe]

lol some parts is litle strange ..
i wonder how they will do that:is to ALLOW griefing… but to build a game that prevents you from wanting to engage in it

People will just disappear into private servers. All that will be left in the P.U. are the PvP players...just like any other game that does not segregate the communities.

 

[fademist]

A crime system that isn't a joke maybe?
One where it actually costs the "criminal" if they get caught by law enforcement - and not in a way where a friend can just collect / clear it for you.

thing is that griefing isnt only the ship killing but u have a point

 

[Dave1235]

Looking back, there was a proposal at one time in the DDF to allow the Private Group creator to select from a (very) basic rule-set:

Thanks Robert. I tske it that Tom is a dev?
If I am reading what he said rightand he is a dev (it is late)then he is describing coop as meaning pve.

Has anyone who bought through steam found this coop mode that is advertised on the steam website?
If so I will buy a copy of the game via steam when I get home and ask for my pb1&lep payment to be refunded
If not it might be time to email the Asa and/or trading standards maybe they can get fd to tell us where it is hiding