Well there's an interesting slant - that's the way it used to happen! Gee I guess we should bring back rotary phones and lose all of the digital improvements from the last 40 years or so because "that's the way it used to happen!". What a great answer! By that metric, before the 2.2 update, I could find delivery missions that paid between 200k and 300k whereas now it's rarer. Makes it harder to save up for that Anaconda but I keep on. This excuse is similar to well in my day we didn't have sophisticated weapons and delivery systems so let's force the other guys to not use them! Good luck.
Same old song about cheaters
- Thread starter S.at
- Start date
- Status
Well there's an interesting slant - that's the way it used to happen! Gee I guess we should bring back rotary phones and lose all of the digital improvements from the last 40 years or so because "that's the way it used to happen!". What a great answer! By that metric, before the 2.2 update, I could find delivery missions that paid between 200k and 300k whereas now it's rarer. Makes it harder to save up for that Anaconda but I keep on. This excuse is similar to well in my day we didn't have sophisticated weapons and delivery systems so let's force the other guys to not use them! Good luck.
I'm sorry, with due and sincere respect - who exactly are you? Someone of any importance beyond anyone else here? Are you anything to Elite Dangerous beyond being a mere player, like the rest of us? (out of interest, did you do a video on Flight Assist Off on You Tube?) Surely any evidence should (and possibly has already) been sent to the Devs - I mean, can the police be trusted to police themselves? (and that's presuming you are such a person to do that; forgive me if I am mistaken) From experience, I sadly have to conclude no on that matter. I expect the same thing to be true in a virtual context also.
Now before you raise stakes to bolster a weak PR attempt/SDC defence, get into a farcical notion about 'evidence' which, let's face it, is more in line with legal proceedings rather than a computer game, perhaps you could focus on what I actually said. I said "some are well known to cheat". Now, I didn't say they cheated. Is it not a fact that "some are well known to cheat"? Yes, I am talking of public perception. I don't need proof to talk about that, do I, or do you want a MORI/IPSOS poll or something?
Let's cut to the chase. Can you quite categorically say that none of the people on the list are involved with what could be construed as 'cheating'? You give me your word, and do it here, that's good enough for me.
Last edited:
We aren't discussing "people who play in solo"; we are discussing "combat logging in solo".
Are affected by combat logging how?
And combat logging in solo affects this how?
High-wake.
So to be clear: you are just fine with them coming in, in solo, in their engineered ultra-vette and tanking your influence; as long as the occasionally lose some small part of their vast fortune if they happen to get killed (which is unlikely end-game)?
Again: How does that loss of credits on their part help or harm *you*?
Interdiction deaths are about zero to players at all capable of telling what they can and cannot handle. I don't usually even need to high-wake. Low wake works just fine... even on my crap ships.
But in all of these cases: you seem to be pointing out that "the whole way open/private/solo is done is inherently flawed; as is power-play. Rather than fixing these flaws we should punish every solo player who gets disconnected because maybe it will also occasionally hurt some people I want hurt"; though in your first two examples: it will also hurt your allies.
Add to that CGs with the commander in the defenseless T9 and the quick fingers on Alt-F4 making the top tier.
Anyway, according to FDev, a forced disconnect in Solo or Group is as much against the rules as it is in Open. Someone less lazy than me may be able to find a citation.
Last edited:
![BigBANGtheory [VR]](https://forums-cdn.zaonce.net/data/avatars/m/71/71385.jpg?1644873788){kind=avatar}
Whether something is or is not against the rules is fairly immaterial, what FDev do is what counts.
Seems to me they are caught between the a morale argument vs. the rules, stability of the game, finding tangible proof and a willingness to take action.
Seems to me they are caught between the a morale argument vs. the rules, stability of the game, finding tangible proof and a willingness to take action.
From what I understand, FD have a rather weak track record on taking action on those who 'break the rules'. Possibly because, under British law, those being banned have a far greater chance of arguing they are being denied something they have paid for, and thus should be recompensed under the Consumer Goods Act or whatever the updated version is called, as the law takes priority over EULA. Possibly.
Last edited:
Until they allow trade and exploration vessels to perform their jobs while having defensive capabilities, then I dont care what ever consensus is reached. If I get interdicted on my way to archaeological site to do some tests, I will save and exit the game. Then switch to solo and I dont care if you call me a cheater.
Once "Griefing" is met with proper risk versus reward and consequences, then sure I may stay online and fight it out. They will need to have actual defensive modules and options for non combat ships. Every defensive measure currently available is structured around dog fighting and active combat.
It has to be just as "Dangerous" to attack a single pilot owned non combat vessel, as it is to attack a combat pilot. The concept that individually owned trade/smuggling vessels must be weak and slow is taken from current maritime practices. The difference being is that Gigantic container ships and barges are owned and operated by huge corporations. They can risk losing cargo and still survive.
However a single pilot in a privately owned ship would never risk open waters by themselves so defenseless. not with the investment required.
So debate on. I didnt invest my time and money into a game for your enjoyment and you didnt pay for my game or my time.
Once "Griefing" is met with proper risk versus reward and consequences, then sure I may stay online and fight it out. They will need to have actual defensive modules and options for non combat ships. Every defensive measure currently available is structured around dog fighting and active combat.
It has to be just as "Dangerous" to attack a single pilot owned non combat vessel, as it is to attack a combat pilot. The concept that individually owned trade/smuggling vessels must be weak and slow is taken from current maritime practices. The difference being is that Gigantic container ships and barges are owned and operated by huge corporations. They can risk losing cargo and still survive.
However a single pilot in a privately owned ship would never risk open waters by themselves so defenseless. not with the investment required.
So debate on. I didnt invest my time and money into a game for your enjoyment and you didnt pay for my game or my time.
As Elite is not a competitive game, either in regular play or in CQC, I doubt they'd outright ban people who were simply griefing if there aren't any active cheats involved.
Exploits, well Frontier needs to fix those. If you spend even 10 minutes reading through this forum it's pretty easy to see what's broken.
Exploits, well Frontier needs to fix those. If you spend even 10 minutes reading through this forum it's pretty easy to see what's broken.
FD could easily solve the logging issue by simply adding an internal module to the game that adds the visual of an exploding ship overlay whenever a combat log is suspected. Boom. Everyone is happy and no one has to continue making these whiny threads that amount to nothing besides people that care way too much about a children's video game and the crylords that defend cheating.
Which is exactly why, when I take my Azimut Dragon 66 out into international waters, I also take a Barrett M82 and my little crew all have H&K MP 5's.
Ah, the advantages of being American...
But this isn't the Pros and Cons of Personal Protection thread, this is the Combat Logging QQ thread.
They better add a giant, glowing "You Win" to that as well, complete with fireworks and special fanfare music too.
@ Cmdrs Riverside and IndigoWyrd: I was not attempting to start a mixed-modes debate, I was attempting to answer directly Cmdr JerryLove's question about whether it was possible for immortality, i.e. combat logging, in Solo to harm the interests of other Cmdrs.
It is capable of harming the interests of other Cmdrs because said immortality cheat makes it easier to harm Powerplay or BGS interests.
Plus of course it makes it illegitimately easier to build up armaments then to use in Open.
Another good example of how an immortality cheat employed in Solo can harm the interests of others.
Yes, Sandro said that, for reasons that are obvious. No-death cheats are against game rules.
Truesilver is dead on.
immortality, even in solo/group, is cheating. No buts about it.
The commodity that we as players can invest in this game is time. Not Credits, not modular terminals or lavian brandy, but time. That's all we have. Death sets you back in terms of credits, that took time to accumulate, death sets you back in terms of cargo, that took time to collect, death sets you back in term of exploration data, that took time to collect, it also sets you back directly in time - that is time lost to get back to the point at which you were killed that is not being spent on in-game progress.
That time you saved by cheating death means you're working the BGS faster than someone else. That time saved by cheating death means you're delivering more CG cargo that someone else. That time saved by cheating death means you're collecting your Combat Bond reward, and helping your chosen side in the CG, while some one else has to go collect them all over again. That exploration Data you saved by cheating death means you have a BGS H-bomb in your back pocket to throw where ever you see fit, which could hurt another players BGS efforts.
immortality, even in solo/group, is cheating. No buts about it.
The commodity that we as players can invest in this game is time. Not Credits, not modular terminals or lavian brandy, but time. That's all we have. Death sets you back in terms of credits, that took time to accumulate, death sets you back in terms of cargo, that took time to collect, death sets you back in term of exploration data, that took time to collect, it also sets you back directly in time - that is time lost to get back to the point at which you were killed that is not being spent on in-game progress.
That time you saved by cheating death means you're working the BGS faster than someone else. That time saved by cheating death means you're delivering more CG cargo that someone else. That time saved by cheating death means you're collecting your Combat Bond reward, and helping your chosen side in the CG, while some one else has to go collect them all over again. That exploration Data you saved by cheating death means you have a BGS H-bomb in your back pocket to throw where ever you see fit, which could hurt another players BGS efforts.
Last edited:
Or to put it another way, it's a shame that some people don't behave with integrity, especially when nobody's looking. For me it's a case of self respect: if I win at something, I win; if I lose at something, I lose. Cheating the BGS is not great, but cheating oneself is far worse.
- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -
Oh, you're the bloke who menu logs and then goes back in solo. Hahaha.
What about AI cheats and bugs harming the interests of others? Suicidal autopilots? Interdiction spams for pirates who want cargo when you've got no cargo at all?
Priorities. Fix the game's behaviour - then we can start looking at people's in solo. Even better, provide an offline version which is what many people jolly well wanted in the first place!
What I do in Solo is really none of anyone's business - nor should it be.
Priorities. Fix the game's behaviour - then we can start looking at people's in solo. Even better, provide an offline version which is what many people jolly well wanted in the first place!
What I do in Solo is really none of anyone's business - nor should it be.
Last edited:
What about AI cheats and bugs harming the interests of others? Suicidal autopilots? Interdiction spams for pirates who want cargo when you've got no cargo at all?
Priorities. Fix the game's behaviour - then we can start looking at people's in solo. Even better, provide an offline version which is what many people jolly well wanted in the first place!
You're the human being. Act like it.
Don't blame a piece of predictable software for your decisions.
We KNOW most of the bugs we're going to run into, we KNOW the ways in which the AI ships don't always play by the same rules, now adapt. Don't cheat.
You can add me to the list of those that openly force disconnect against obvious griefers, AND are vocal about it.
"..the list of those who will someday be banned to a shadow group to live out their space lives in exile because they were scared."
Sorry, I think that post is absolutely ludicrous, patronising and stinks of gitgud herd thinking. Human being - act like it - what?!? You making this personal just because I don't agree with you? Odd.
Besides. For most of human history, people have taken advantage of any exploit that they can lay their hands on. Genes. Inheritance. So I would suggest that it's human nature to seek that advantage. I'm not - I just mostly care about my own in-game experience, which has rather a lot of bugs (it's Elite, to an extent that goes with the territory - oh and by the way, the fact that you say we know 'most' of the bugs kind of means it's not predictable. You must see the own weakness to your argument?).
I'm not blaming anything for my decisions - never done so. And I don't 'cheat'. And if I did - guess what, that's my right to do so - provided I don't affect anyone else.
The game sets the tone by the way it behaves. If the game 'cheats' the player, then what example is it setting? People take their cues from the game environment.
I don't tell you how to think and act. Don't do the same to anyone else. When I'm playing in Solo, I don't care about you. Nor should I. I don't have an unhealthy interest in how you play the game, provided you are not damaging someone else's experience. Anything else is just pure pettiness IMO. Just because I don't agree with you, it doesn't make me a cheater.
If you find some way which saves you time, improves your playing experience, doesn't harm anyone else and doesn't break the actual rules (not the perceived ones) - good on you, good on anybody I say.
Last edited:
You misunderstand, friend. This isn't personal, I'm not berating you. If anything I'm trying to be encouraging.
Anyway, no need to try and shift blame away from yourself. I get it, you're just doing what comes natural. It is possible to be better.
- Status