Is "Save"ing still a legitimate tactic to avoid destruction ?

[GluttonyFang]

BOOM! My wife just fell because she has epilepsy..and is having a seizure.
I hear her calling for me....but Im in battle.
I shout to her to hang on...Im down to 1 shield ring left...it shouldnt take too much longer for this DBX with MC's to kill my Conda.
Hang on honey.....just about 5-10 more minutes and I should be at the rebuy screen so I can help you.
Hang on dear...I dread being on SDC or Codes kill on sight list...

At which point you can just leave the computer, why do you have to quit?

Is your in-game credits and progress more important or is your wife more important?

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

I'm not aware of FD saying anything of the sort. Can you please show me, I really want to see if so.

Because he is making things up and throwing nonsense onto the screen like I said and explained, people just don't research on this forum.

 

[askavir]

Exiting the game in such a manner is technically legitimate, but extremely dishounorable.

Most especially dishonorable when it was actually the OP who started the fight. Why do you start a fight if you cannot bear the prospect of losing and end up using such a cowardly way to save your behind?

 

[Mark Lock]

I had a little contretemps (my fault entirely) with an Elite CMDR in an FDL over the weekend in a haz-res site. He easily evaded me and after a fly-past in silent running (my all-gimballed weapons could not get a lock) he quite rightly returned fire. At this point I decided to run - I know my all-rounder Conda, with me at the helm (Master), is no match for a decent commander in an FDL - so I boosted away as quick as a could and as soon as mass-locked dropped I super-cruised away. At this point 1 had 1 faint ring of shields left.
He must have followed because he interdicted me a couple of minutes later. I submitted immediately and as soon as I could started to boost away. Before I could jump into super-cruise he had my shields down and my hull is slowly crumbling. I went to high-wake out and, horror of horror, my FSD is unavailable, offline. He had shot it out. So now all I can do is boost and wait to die. So I kept boosting, he kept firing, but amazingly I'm gaining ground. Slowly the hits get much less damaging and I keep boosting....and boosting.... At 13% hull my shields come back online (thats a long time in a Conda). I keep boosting. The firing stops. I boost a couple more times, try my FSD - its still off-line, still no firing so I hit "Save and exit to Desktop". The 15-second count-down takes forever and towards the end I can hear the firing start again. Any second I'm expecting to hear the Conda explode.....and suddenly I can save... Phew - close call.....

A couple of hours later (I'm waiting for a mate outside the system docking station) he gently barges into me and opens a comms channel and asks me why I combat logged. I explained I didn't combat log - I saved - and the last time I heard Frontier regarded saving as a legitimate tactic. He said not - that I should not save - I should have stayed in the game and "learned" - and salute the victor.....

I did ask what I could learn but he didn't answer - he kept insisting I should not save.

So - did I do wrong ? Is saving under these circumstances a legitimate tactic ? He asked me not to do it again. My response was as long as Frontier regarded it as a legitimate tactic I would continue to do it.

Opinions ? I'd love to hear the "official" Frontier line on this.

You actually combat logged, it's not a legitimate tactic at all, even if you used ingame exist mechanics, it is still unacceptable behaviour in PVP, I would recommend raising the counter to 2 minutes when you are in "Danger" or simply let people log off but the ship stays online for x minutes like in some other games I played.

Please don't combat log again, thank you

 

[Lemonhoko]

At which point you can just leave the computer, why do you have to quit?

Is your in-game credits and progress more important or is your wife more important?

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



Because he is making things up and throwing nonsense onto the screen like I said and explained, people just don't research on this forum.

The fact that CODE and SDC do not invade private groups anymore says it all.
If there was no threat of being banned, you guys would still be doing it.

Thats clear enough for me.


Seems by your tone, you support invading game modes of people trying not to play with you...I may be mistaken, but that what Im getting.

 

[Alex Brentnall]

Technically, you did not do anything wrong.

However, you completely lost respect in the PvP community by what you did and you will be called out for it.

Congratz on making many KoS lists, mine included.

That's all.

No actually, repeated mode invasion after being banned from the group is against the rule, invading mode as an one time event is not against the rule.

You should re-read Zac's statement if you are still confused.

Ah, Hi Mr Fang, It's been a while.

I fully agree to your initial comment (1st quote), it may be a bit far to put him on a KoS list although that's your outlook and your are welcome to do so. I guess the main mistake OP did was post about it

Although I would object to the particular statement above (2nd quote).
I believe you are referring to this:

Spoiler

Hi everyone,

In light of recent issues relating to the way a small collective of players have been approaching and targeting specific private groups and other community events such as charity livestreams, we wanted to reinforce an important part of the existing rules regarding in-game harassment that every player agrees to when creating their account.

We wanted to reiterate some examples regarding the rules of Player harassment. If a player has been blocked from a private group, or a group/individual has taken every step possible to remove a player from their gameplay, then attempting to circumvent this in any fashion is a serious offense and action will be taken accordingly. Attempting to re-establish contact with an individual who has blocked a player through secondary accounts or other methods of attempting to evade the block are against the rules. Action can and will be taken against both the accounts in question and the main accounts of players that we deem to be harassing players through this method.

In addition taking action such as seeking out and targeting specific players purely for the purpose of being disruptive, to cause offence, or to upset players within the community can also be considered harassment. A perfect example of this is deliberately attempting to disrupt public livestreams such as the charity ones mentioned before. This includes, but is not limited to, the capturing of footage and releasing it publically in an attempt to create upset or gain notoriety through the actions listed above.

We have previously stated, and it remains true, that Frontier are not able to manage group specific rules. Players considered to be breaking these group rule sets as established by group moderators should be removed from those groups by said moderators. In addition, running a livestream in Open does invite the potential for players to approach and impact your gameplay and running a livestream in which you are declaring war on another group and they come and take action against you is reasonable and should be expected.

Ultimately it’s about context. The support team can and will review these kinds of offences and will be taking action against accounts that set their entire purpose on harassing players and groups in this way. They are currently investigating a number of incidents and will be dealing directly with any parties involved.

The Frontier Support team take the protection and safety of the community very seriously, they strive to ensure that the game remains fair and friendly. If you feel the need to report an incident, please do get in contact with support via our support site at https://support.frontier.co.uk - please include as much detail of the event as possible.

You can see a copy of the rules that everyone signs up to by creating an account, including harassment, here:
https://www.frontierstore.net/ed-eula/

Thanks for reading.

I'd argue a single group/mode invasion is an offence due to the 2nd main block of text starting "in addition". If you are mode invading by definition you are there to disrupt or cause offence. And the whole It's fine to do it once feels somewhat like a childish arguement (attacking the argument here not you personally).


As for the thread as a whole I object to the use of this log-out timer for escaping combat but as it's said that is the correct gaming mechanic for leaving the game and not cheating. As Op says he's welcome to use it until Devs say otherwise but I wish Devs would change it and/or say otherwise. I have nothing against people saving'off or even combat logging if the situation merits it (the medical emergency example mentioned) but for the sake of saving your hide I object.
Personally I'd have a system where repeated log-offs in combat both C-logging and Save-logging gets you on an "investigate" list. Devs open account logs, see that cmdr logs back in seconds after combat/save logging and send warnings. If behaviour doesn't change move to shadow bans. It's quite elegant since Developers should be able to set up an automated system to monitor online status relative to combat status since the log-out timer already records combat status and the servers no doubt store online-status. And if they were logging for a legit reason it would be a once/twice occurrence per year not per week and they wouldn't insta-log back in there'd be at least 30min+ gap.
Throw it in a database and find the ones with ridiculously high logout in combat rates and work your way down from the worst to least worst offenders.

As for the whole loss of progress I've died a few times whilst on calls as a fuel rat. We simply don't care as a group, I even attempted to refuel one of my aggressors. Accept the loss and move on, if you fly with insurance it's not that big a hit given the current status of certain unmentionable activities (Cough - Robigo - Cough).

 

[thorn-]

Is your in-game credits and progress more important or is your wife more important?

Yeah, that was my thought as well.

If my GF was screaming and having a seizure, I wouldn't even remember I was playing a video game.

Really, THAT is an argument to used against people maligning combat logging? How        g, utterly shallow.

 

[Lucifer Hate]

You actually combat logged, it's not a legitimate tactic at all, even if you used ingame exist mechanics, it is still unacceptable behaviour in PVP, I would recommend raising the counter to 2 minutes when you are in "Danger" or simply let people log off but the ship stays online for x minutes like in some other games I played.

Please don't combat log again, thank you

FD has already said it is not possible to keep the ship there after logout because of the P2P architecture they use. It has been a complaint of many people since before release

 

[Jpotter]

Go stick in Solo if you are going to combat log. And call it what it is - COMBAT LOGGING. If you aren't going to live with the consequences of real CMDRs don't play with them.

 

[Mark Lock]

Yeah, that was my thought as well.

If my GF was screaming and having a seizure, I wouldn't even remember I was playing a video game.

Really, THAT is an argument to used against people maligning combat logging? How g, utterly shallow.

Exactly, in such an emergency you leave the computer without even saving, as you said, that's argument

 

[Marra Morgan]

What will we see next...kill on sight for anyone mining in a cobra?

Sure, why not?

*adds to list*

 

[Mark Lock]

FD has already said it is not possible to keep the ship there after logout because of the P2P architecture they use. It has been a complaint of many people since before release

OK but then the counter should be much longer if you are under attack or chased by enemy ships, 5 minutes would be optimal and I think it is the easiest way to prevent COMBAT LOGGING through ingame save mechanics. He could well save but after the battle is over.

 

[Lucifer Hate]

At which point you can just leave the computer, why do you have to quit?

Is your in-game credits and progress more important or is your wife more important?

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



Because he is making things up and throwing nonsense onto the screen like I said and explained, people just don't research on this forum.

Yeah, that was my thought as well.

If my GF was screaming and having a seizure, I wouldn't even remember I was playing a video game.

Really, THAT is an argument to used against people maligning combat logging? How g, utterly shallow.

Yeah people always looking for excuses to justify combat logging. I have a family member that has had life threatening episodes while I was online and I sure did not think of taking time to log out 1st

 

[Mark Lock]

Sure, why not?

*adds to list*

I KOS people for interdicting me for reasons, it happened just the other day

 

[GJ51]

How do the PvP crowd know if you're on a KOS list?

They look for the hollow rectangle...

 

[GluttonyFang]

I'd argue a single group/mode invasion is an offence due to the 2nd main block of text starting "in addition". If you are mode invading by definition you are there to disrupt or cause offence. And the whole It's fine to do it once feels somewhat like a childish arguement (attacking the argument here not you personally).

No worries, as long as we are debating without putting in personal sentiments, it's a productive discussion.

First of all, I would like to clarify as I have done already in this thread that I do not approve of mode invasion. Now, if you examine the sentence you are bringing attention to:

"In addition taking action such as seeking out and targeting specific players purely for the purpose of being disruptive, to cause offence, or to upset players within the community can also be considered harassment."

In conjunction with:

"We have previously stated, and it remains true, that Frontier are not able to manage group specific rules. Players considered to be breaking these group rule sets as established by group moderators should be removed from those groups by said moderators."

This gives us ground to conclude that mode invasion in general, when not seeking out to disrupt specific players, is not against FD's rules. A "PvE" rule like the one maintained by Mobius cannot create "specific players," since identifying as a PvE player puts said player in no specific category marginalizing enough to constitute as a specific type of player. A player can enjoy a wide range of play styles but merely choose to be in Mobius.

This makes more sense as we look at FD's stance on being non-enforcing toward player group specific rules, meaning that "PvE mode" is not something FD supports officially, FD is willing to accommodate, but only up to the degree of upholding the player group moderators' ability to remove undesirable players.

What we need here is proof of intent, which is near impossible on the internet, let alone a video game. Anyone can lie about their circumstance, anyone can claim to be ignorant of rules, but precisely because of that, not much can be done without going overboard and enforcing every player group specific rule.

Being disruptive and deceptive in this game is allowed, as long as people do not enter the territory of real-life threats (Funny enough I've received it for the first time on the internet simply for being the representative of The Code during the Hutton incident, oh the irony) and credit card/email/password fishing.

The legality of the situation is quite clear, mode invasion isn't against the rule, repeated mode invasion, however, is. Zac just couldn't say it bluntly because he is PR for FD, and it's easy to read between the lines.

 

[Lucifer Hate]

OK but then the counter should be much longer if you are under attack or chased by enemy ships, 5 minutes would be optimal and I think it is the easiest way to prevent COMBAT LOGGING through ingame save mechanics. He could well save but after the battle is over.

I disagree remove the timer altogether and and make it so can't log out if ship is in danger

 

[GluttonyFang]

How do the PvP crowd know if you're on a KOS list?

They look for the hollow rectangle...

How does the PvE crowd know if you should be marginalized?

They look for any sign of support for PvP.

Asinine? Yes.

Funny? No.

 

[MickyG1982]

The troll appears to be well fed with this one...

Time to bury this thread into the deepest depths of the bridge...

 

[Alex Brentnall]

<Snip>

Fully agree, you can be pro-PvP and still be in a private group. Just when your in said private group you should abide by their rules or fly elsewhere. Same as fuel rats, if your off-duty do what you like, if your on-duty (in group) follow the procedures and rules.

Yeah, I do fully agree that CODE (as I was frequently told has no THE ) has been misrepresented somewhat, possibly by actions of it's own members possibly by people bandwaggoning without experience. Most likely a bit of both.
Also phishing, seriously, thats quite an offence since it pushes it from in-game to criminal! Some people take the internet way too seriously and i'm honestly disgusted that you had to deal with that...

I'd agree that intent is often hard to prove but I still think a single offence (if proven) is enough, as you say it's the proving thats often difficult. I'd still argue requesting an invite by searching generally requires some knowledge of said group and rules especially in the most well known ones (mentioning no names)
I do however believe in the stupidity of people on the internet and there was a particularly good example that escapes my memory a tad where the player was streaming themselves with the title "Killing X's livestream" <- X being a streamer. Most cases are a bit gray area but some are quite cut and dry.

Yeah we actually agree on a lot here just not the one bit I was arguing I personally think it's too open to interpretation but thats me, I enjoy structure

Anyway, interesting(ish) discussion, seems to be similar to all the others and expecting a lock so I guess i'll end my involvement here not least because I have work tomorrow. Pleasure as always

 

[DaveB]

Personally I'd put a single mode invasion then following the letter of the law by not coming back after the inevitable kick as in precisely the same category as the OPs logoff. Legal but lame. And as detrimental to the perpetrators worthiness for respect. But then I'd also like to see the "legal logoff timer" lengthened to the point where it's seriously counterproductive to use it to escape combat and a single mode invasion being against the rules...