Food for Thought : Possible Solution to Combat Logging & Stacking of Missions?

[R3DB3RD]

Sooooo...

My crappy internet drops out all the time. I get punished and have to wait fifteen minutes before I can log back in.

Nope. I go play something else. I lose interest in ED.. I don't pay for more expansions or season passes. I don't buy any more ship paint jobs, bobble heads, caps t shirts and all the rest of it.

Yes seriously.
Ban me for stuff that's out of my control. I say <love it> ED and move on.

As for stopping mission stacking?

Seriously?

That's like a staple of ALL quest/mission giving games    . From WoW to Skyrim.. Every game you can think of...

 

[Comrade Error]

Sooooo...

My crappy internet drops out all the time. I get punished and have to wait fifteen minutes before I can log back in.

Nope. I go play something else. I lose interest in ED.. I don't pay for more expansions or season passes. I don't buy any more ship paint jobs, bobble heads, caps t shirts and all the rest of it.

Yes seriously.
Ban me for stuff that's out of my control. I say <love it> ED and move on.

As for stopping mission stacking?

Seriously?

That's like a staple of ALL quest/mission giving games . From WoW to Skyrim.. Every game you can think of...

Read the OP again, if you still say the same keep reading it until you understand where you went wrong.

 

[Siobhan]

The mission stacking issue is to do with logging in, stacking 'em up, then logging out and back in in a different mode... say private and repeating, and then again in solo... until you have more missions than should be available... NOT just stacking "in mode"...

The rest of what you say, I agree with.

 

[Red Anders]

Further let me say I am not against people making money either, however it does seem strange that in order to get good missions you must swap modes. It is tedious and unnecessary from a design perspective. Hopefully with 2.1 we will see a great increase to the way missions work but if this isn't enough, I would hope the mission boards will become more robust with larger options of missions reducing the need to even mode-swap.

Thoughts?

There is no 'need' to mode swap to obtain missions. The fact that some people do it does not make it necessary, or compulsory.

 

[Chrystoph]

This also in essence will kill two birds with one stone and remove the mode-swapping that is common to stack missions.

Further let me say I am not against people making money either, however it does seem strange that in order to get good missions you must swap modes. It is tedious and unnecessary from a design perspective. Hopefully with 2.1 we will see a great increase to the way missions work but if this isn't enough, I would hope the mission boards will become more robust with larger options of missions reducing the need to even mode-swap.

So, the solution to people that are not having an effect on anyone else's direct game play is to punish them for trying to optimize their own game play because of something that is a percieved defect in the program?

The argument against stacked missions is ridiculous on the face of it unless you also want to limit RES bounty hunting to one kill per session and make loop route trading somehow illegal. Stacked missions are already inherently limited by the fact that interdiction percentages go up, and they also stack with the number of missions. I have had four separate NPCs try to interdict me at once because of stacked missions.

 

[bitstorm]

There is no 'need' to mode swap to obtain missions. The fact that some people do it does not make it necessary, or compulsory.

Would tend to agree with no need but it offers such an advantage that people will do it.

Also this but meta-alloy CG? Can you imagine doing that legitimately?

 

[stooger]

It's the same as before, same as always... Combat logging should result in (x-time) ban for open play. Doesn't matter if it was PvP or helpless trader running from wing of anacondas or a griefer who just want to kill you (because reasons). It's pathetic when I see post about some player in T6 doing his trading run and getting interdicet and destroyed. YOU have SOOO many options... so many systems, so many routes, so many stations. But no... you just have to go the easies way.... fastest way, most profitable way... and when killed you cry beacase it's not your fault. Yes it is. Sometimes it's just bad luck (or wife upstairs... well autopilot with "escape ai" would be great for such occasions)... but even then that's the way this game should work imo. I always imagined Elite DANGEROUSE as something more dangerous. You take risks and face the consequences or go play solo. Everyone are flying straight to the lions den and then cry... next time they are not smarter, they just combat log.
I really think that gameplay could be much more exciting and deeper than what it is now (wow... actually planning your route insted of clicking destination system because of pc/npc interdictions?!). There is much more to be done than just bans for combat loging ofc... but it's a start.

 

[Siobhan]

It's the same as before, same as always... Combat logging should result in (x-time) ban for open play. Doesn't matter if it was PvP or helpless trader running from wing of anacondas or a griefer who just want to kill you (because reasons). It's pathetic when I see post about some player in T6 doing his trading run and getting interdicet and destroyed. YOU have SOOO many options... so many systems, so many routes, so many stations. But no... you just have to go the easies way.... fastest way, most profitable way... and when killed you cry beacase it's not your fault. Yes it is. Sometimes it's just bad luck (or wife upstairs... well autopilot with "escape ai" would be great for such occasions)... but even then that's the way this game should work imo. I always imagined Elite DANGEROUSE as something more dangerous. You take risks and face the consequences or go play solo. Everyone are flying straight to the lions den and then cry... next time they are not smarter, they just combat log.
I really think that gameplay could be much more exciting and deeper than what it is now (wow... actually planning your route insted of clicking destination system because of pc/npc interdictions?!). There is much more to be done than just bans for combat loging ofc... but it's a start.

Rubbish!

When a person in a trade ship is interdicted and killed, the fault lies with the person doing the interdicting and killing!

Can we get out of this culture of blaming the victim... "You deserved it because of what you were wearingflying. It's a lie and everyone with half a brain knows it's a lie. Start blaming the perps, not the victims.

 

[Zelos1983]

When a person in a trade ship is interdicted and killed, the fault lies with the person doing the interdicting and killing!

Not in E, as the trader explicitely expressed consent by flying in Open (PvP enabled) instead of Solo (PvE mode). In such a case, combat logging should NOT be used to influence the outcome of the battle.

 

[Siobhan]

Not in E, as the trader explicitely expressed consent by flying in Open (PvP enabled) instead of Solo (PvE mode). In such a case, combat logging should NOT be used to influence the outcome of the battle.

Again, rubbish! Playing in open is NOT consenting to be a target for some moron with a pew-pew fetish.
Welcome to my ignore list... (there's no point in responding since I won't see it.)

 

[Aewarin Jameson]

Again, rubbish! Playing in open is NOT consenting to be a target for some moron with a pew-pew fetish.

Your consent is not required - players have the freedom to open fire on any vessel for any reason (good or bad).

What is missing are suitable consequences for said actions to make this freedom meaningful.

 

[kenski99]

Exactly!

 

[EUS]

Terrible ideas, without needing to explain myself, I'll come and go as I please.

 

[Siobhan]

Your consent is not required - players have the freedom to open fire on any vessel for any reason (good or bad).

What is missing are suitable consequences for said actions as the current implementation is lacking.

True, but he claimed that people do consent... and the prior one that traders were to blame...
RP a psycho if you like, kill people if you like, but let the blame fall in the right place, and as you say, there need to be consequences.

 

[DaveB]

The hysteria about combat logging is just so much bovine biowaste.

The person that pulls a logoffski to escape being destroyed is lame, yes. I won't do it and I'll point fingers at the guys who do and ridicule them for it as much as the next player. But if they don't want to play with me, I'm happy not playing with them. Somebody vanishes while I'm shooting at them I just shrug and move on. If I've had 15 seconds to shoot at them some more while they were doing it fair enough - I've increased their repair costs at the very least, even if they are not logging back in to a rebuy screen. If they yanked the cable or killed the process then they've an ungraceful exit on file with FD and whatever consequences FD deem appropriate will descend on them at some point in the future if they keep doing it. It's not worth me getting bent out of shape over. It might have been a totally legit connection issue after all. If it wasn't, they lost that encounter and they know it without needing to see "your ship was destroyed by Cmdr.... " and that's enough for me to smirk next time I see them (if I ever do).

If it's so big a deal to "penalize" folks who logoff while in combat, don't prevent them from logging back in, don't restrict their modes, don't do a thing with actual in-game consequences. Stick a nice big decal of an L-plate on their ship that they can't remove for a couple of days. (for those of you not familiar with driving in the UK that's a big red L on a white background indicating a learner driver - in this case, the L could stand for "lamer") They can do what they want, neither we not FD can stop them, so shame 'em instead.

 

[Aewarin Jameson]

True, but he claimed that people do consent... and the prior one that traders were to blame...
RP a psycho if you like, kill people if you like, but let the blame fall in the right place, and as you say, there need to be consequences.

You don't directly give consent by ticking a box or nodding your head when someone interdicts you, however you indirectly give it when entering any mode other than solo because PvP-Combat is allowed there and you freely entered. (I do get your point though)

 

[Siobhan]

You don't directly give consent by ticking a box or nodding your head when someone interdicts you, however you indirectly give it when entering any mode other than solo because PvP-Combat is allowed there and you freely entered. (I do get your point though)

So you freely consent to be killed, robbed, whatever... every time you step through your front door? Sorry, but that's not a world I want to live in.

 

[Robert Maynard]

So you freely consent to be killed, robbed, whatever... every time you step through your front door? Sorry, but that's not a world I want to live in.

Generally those incidents occur without consent - sadly, that is the world that we live in - we can choose, to an extent, which bit of that world we live in though.

 

[Siobhan]

Generally those incidents occur without consent - sadly, that is the world that we live in - we can choose, to an extent, which bit of that world we live in though.

That's what I meant. We don't consent any more nor any less than an unarmed trader in ED does, contrary to what some people might think.

Conversely, in the real world, there are consequences, which get harsher as the crime gets worse.

Stealing a wallet is one thing, but if you than shoot the cops that come for you, they don't say oh well... shouldn't have been in the outside.

 

[Zelos1983]

Conversely, in the real world, there are consequences, which get harsher as the crime gets worse.

In the real world, (unfortunately) you cannot choose not to have other "players" (people) around.

If you actively choose a "game mode" in which other people exist, some of whom may try to rob you (despite the action being illegal) then you are responsible for the choosing of your game mode and its consequences. You cannot explictely state consent to play with others and then blame them for not playing the way you like it.