Simple Fix to Combat Logging

[AJW]

PvP is an intended game mechanic, there is no more evidence needed to be given, and Open is where all things that can happen are allowed to happen.

As for the rules of the game, if you'll look closely at the EULA and Code of Conduct that FD has for Elite: Dangerous, you'll find that many of the rules FD has put in place for Elite: Dangerous aren't mentioned at all, such as combat logging. They are none the less the rules FD has put in place, which can be found on these forums, FD's official site for the game. Again, you could try your argument in a court of law, but I don't think it'll go in your favor here.

Why would I need to argue anything in a court of law? It isn't me that is claiming that imaginary 'agreements' exist...

 

[KaizoMK]

I have a slightly different idea, a sort of follow up on the OP. How about instead of explosions, when a player disappears from the game in combat situation (be it because of the connection loss or combat logging), a doppelganger NPC with the same name, ship, stats, cargo, bounties, route plotted etc. is created at the very same moment. Complete with player-like radar marker. AI kicks in and the dopelganger either continues combat or runs. Attacked ship either gets blown up in combat or disappears after making a jump. Attacker is none the wiser. Everybody's happy.

It could be an abusable issue if it generates extra wealth. If it doesn't properly reward the player killing the logger, it's going to feel super jenky like before.

 

[Godtron]

This game is literally one of the most confusingly messy concepts I've ever come across. I'm actually now convinced I should probably try Star Citizen instead. Elite could be such an amazing open world PvP MMO if they actually wanted it to be. But I guess they don't. There is simply no other explanation for all the completely contradictory features/elements of this game.

 

[Kristov]

Why would I need to argue anything in a court of law? It isn't me that is claiming that imaginary 'agreements' exist...

It's not imaginary, you play in Open, you've given consent to PvP as it's an intended game mechanic and isn't prohibited or have any strictures upon it's usage in Open. NO mode has any prohibitions or strictures upon PvP as it happens, but Solo is the only mode where you will never be subjected to PvP. Group mode doesn't prohibit or place strictures upon PvP, see the Mobius affairs for more information on that.

You can try and argue there is no consent given but that doesn't change the fact that it is given when you play in Open, that's how the game is designed to work. Don't want to be someone else's content, don't play in Open, FD will tell you the same thing, matter of fact, they have, so you've lost that one already.

 

[GluttonyFang]

The same they do when they want to treat me as loot.

But that is done in the accepted parameter of the game, and done in a way that is legitimate.

Combat logging is not legitimate nor is it an accepted parameter of the game.

- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -

It affects the other player a lot less than what you're combat-logging to avoid. So obviously the effect your actions have on other players isn't important to the people complaining about it, or else they wouldn't be PvPing in the first place.

You're allowed to ruin someone's day, but this specific method with a much milder effect is suddenly terrible? It's crazy.

Your argument doesn't make sense.

Piracy is an intended mechanic of the game that is advertised and permitted whereas combat logging is not, what is not clear here?

- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -

Piracy, by the way, was stated by the devs to be intended as a PvE activity. You aren't supposed to pirate other players.

Please provide citation.

 

[GluttonyFang]

Con you point out exactly where anyone 'agrees to PvP' when playing in open? It isn't in the EULA, and it isn't on the menu. There is no such rule...

Can you point out where everyone "agrees to PvE," "agrees to fly a space ship of any kind," "agrees to play with some sort of controller/keyboard/mouse?" "Agrees to use thrusters?" "Agrees to land in a station?" when playing in open?

Can you see where this argument is going and how silly it is?

- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -

That is an advertisement, and not a set of rules. An advertisement a player may never have even seen. One cannot 'agree' to something one hasn't read...

Well, then players did not agree to a lot of things not just in this particular game but a lot of laws in real life, so... permission to plead ignorance to the law/stipulation?

Oh wait... doesn't work.

- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -

It isn't an argument. It is a statement of fact. Deal with it.

It's a statement alright, an outrageous one that doesn't hold in the current context.

- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -

Say what you like. It is impossible to agree to something you know nothing about. And the simple fact is that nothing in the EULA or the menu says anything about 'agreeing' to PvP. No such agreement exists.

By any chance you understand the concept of acquiescence that exists in pretty much any nomocracy...?

Open as the way it is incorporates PvP in a way where it obtains consent through means of acquiescence, precisely because of this premise, combat logging is considered an exploit. Not saying that we shouldn't change Open to be more inclusive.

 

[GluttonyFang]

It may well be intended. That doesn't alter the fact that there is no 'agreement to PvP' stated anywhere. Personally I think it would help matters no end if the menus actually told players what to expect - but they don't.

And there is no indication that it is PvE, thus one can expect a mix of both in some shape or form, anything outside of it is wishful thinking.

- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -

It may well be a feature of the game. That is however irrelevant to the point I'm making - that no 'agreement to PvP' need exist in order to play in open.

Then you might want to call up the developers and let them explain to you how that is not the case, hence the conclusion they reached about combat logging.

- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -

No such agreement exists. It is a figment of your imagination.

No, they don't, but they can't claim that there was prior agreement. Because no such agreement exists. Anywhere.

The issue with this argument is that it can be applied to anything and everything.

- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -

Generally speaking, courts of law base decisions on evidence. And no evidence has been offered in this thread that supports the assertion that you have to agree to PvP in order to play in open. This 'agreement' is a figment of peoples' imaginations...

Sorry but do you study/intern for law in any country? Because I do.

I can tell you right now the judge will look at you then tell you to get out of his/her face and stop wasting his/her time.

- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -

You grasp of what the word 'consent' means is more than a little tenuous...

Read Max Weber on Vocation of Politics then come back, thank you.

- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -

Why would I need to argue anything in a court of law? It isn't me that is claiming that imaginary 'agreements' exist...

You are the one challenging the concept, so if anything you're plaintiff/prosecution.

 

[DHMeyer]

It could be an abusable issue if it generates extra wealth. If it doesn't properly reward the player killing the logger, it's going to feel super jenky like before.

The point is not to mention such thing being implemented
But yeah, you're right. So, let's say, bounties and cargo are not carried on to the doppelganger. If any cargo gets dropped, it's randomly chosen, so usually it would be some sub 1k galaxy average price commodities, with a chance for something better once in a while. Attacker still gets the opportunity to shoot at something, with a chance of repair costs / ammo cost being to some extent covered by that cargo and some small chance of getting something more valuable.

 

[Kristov]

Damnit Gluttony...lost track of how much rep I owe you now...

 

[AJW]

Read Max Weber on Vocation of Politics then come back, thank you.

Would you care to cite the relevant passage?

 

[KaizoMK]

The point is not to mention such thing being implemented
But yeah, you're right. So, let's say, bounties and cargo are not carried on to the doppelganger. If any cargo gets dropped, it's randomly chosen, so usually it would be some sub 1k galaxy average price commodities, with a chance for something better once in a while. Attacker still gets the opportunity to shoot at something, with a chance of repair costs / ammo cost being to some extent covered by that cargo and some small chance of getting something more valuable.

It can't be random - if the original was scanned for gold, and the doppleganger poops out tea, that's just as immersion breaking. And it'd be annoying if the value was less than the potential profit from the victim.

I still stand by my original suggestion - upon combat logging in open (as per the definition), you drop all your cargo instantly and die. This coupled with proper punishment for murder ought to solve the problem with the fewest complaints overall from either side...I can't even imagine many relevant complaints, you'd get people upset that they're getting pirated in open or dying on logout, or players upset that they got stationbanned because they killed someone they were trying to pirate, or are just awful people.

The most clever of players may continue to sever connections with players and not FD and that'd circumvent this problem. Unfortunately, just giving the attacker rewards for the encounter is actually highly abusable -by the attacker-. Maybe we could focus on a reasonable solution for this aspect.

 

[GluttonyFang]

Would you care to cite the relevant passage?

Google "Max Weber on Vocation of Politics" and read the first result that is a pdf document and read even the first two pages you'll have a general idea.

Edit:

Read with the intent to understand acquiescence.

 

[AJW]

Google "Max Weber on Vocation of Politics" and read the first result that is a pdf document and read even the first two pages you'll have a general idea.

Edit:

Read with the intent to understand acquiescence.

I have no need to Google it - I am well aware of Weber's essay. If you really think it is relevant to this discussion, please quote the relevant passage rather than indulging in your usual vague hand-waving. Because quite frankly I can't see any connection whatsoever. As seems to generally be the case when you toss Foucault or Hobbes or whoever into a discussion just to demonstrate how well-read you are...

 

[GluttonyFang]

I have no need to Google it - I am well aware of Weber's essay. If you really think it is relevant to this discussion, please quote the relevant passage rather than indulging in your usual vague hand-waving. Because quite frankly I can't see any connection whatsoever. As seems to generally be the case when you toss Foucault or Hobbes or whoever into a discussion just to demonstrate how well-read you are...

If you are familiar with Weber's lecture on the relevant discussion, then you know precisely what the concept of acquiescence is about. Not to mention that the Pdf I'm referring you to is only 27 pages long, which is nowhere near the full length of the full book. Not to mention how the concept is perfectly explained literally one to two pages into the book itself.

FD is the sovereign here, and the Elite Dangerous universe the game itself is under the jurisdiction of FD. Even in Locke's concept of tacit consent didn't require consent to everything and anything because there are certain elements that are either implicit or fall under acquiescence. I already explained everything very clearly through my replies, I don't know what isn't clear.

Edit:

http://anthropos-lab.net/wp/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Weber-Politics-as-a-Vocation.pdf

Here, read, first two pages, if you don't want to use google.

Edit2:

I don't ever throw random names without being able to defend and explain my position, it's the basic etiquette for anyone calling themselves an intellectual.

 

[KaizoMK]

I have no need to Google it - I am well aware of Weber's essay. If you really think it is relevant to this discussion, please quote the relevant passage rather than indulging in your usual vague hand-waving. Because quite frankly I can't see any connection whatsoever. As seems to generally be the case when you toss Foucault or Hobbes or whoever into a discussion just to demonstrate how well-read you are...

He's basically saying that by playing Elite Dangerous, you're agreeing to the terms of the game whether you like it or not, whether you mean to or not.

 

[GluttonyFang]

He's basically saying that by playing Elite Dangerous, you're agreeing to the terms of the game whether you like it or not, whether you mean to or not.

I thought this was clear as day the moment I mentioned "acquiescence," but I guess I was wrong.

 

[KaizoMK]

I thought this was clear as day the moment I mentioned "acquiescence," but I guess I was wrong.

In all honesty, I googled Weber's essay and got really bored. So I googled "acquiescence" instead and figured out what THAT meant.

 

[GluttonyFang]

In all honesty, I googled Weber's essay and got really bored. So I googled "acquiescence" instead and figured out what THAT meant.

See? You didn't even need to read to get what I was saying, just a concise word's definition did the job.

I really don't get what people go on when they accuse me of being too complex...

 

[AJW]

If you are familiar with Weber's lecture on the relevant discussion, then you know precisely what the concept of acquiescence is about. Not to mention that the Pdf I'm referring you to is only 27 pages long, which is nowhere near the full length of the full book. Not to mention how the concept is perfectly explained literally one to two pages into the book itself.

FD is the sovereign here, and the Elite Dangerous universe the game itself is under the jurisdiction of FD. Even in Locke's concept of tacit consent didn't require consent to everything and anything because there are certain elements that are either implicit or fall under acquiescence. I already explained everything very clearly through my replies, I don't know what isn't clear.

Edit:

http://anthropos-lab.net/wp/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Weber-Politics-as-a-Vocation.pdf

Here, read, first two pages, if you don't want to use google.

"FD is the sovereign here"! Nope. Just silly. I see no reason to waste any further time on your vacuous sophistry. I suggest you dedicate a little more time to actually reading the documents you cite, and a little less to telling everyone how well read you are. If only for the sake of your future career...

 

[KaizoMK]

I really don't get what people go on when they accuse me of being too complex...

Because when a concise definition would suffice, you pointed someone toward a 27 page dissertation on politics.

To be fair, you tried to direct the poor toward an essay that would help explain what he doesn't understand.