Who's rules?
Players? Not relevant nor am I interested in what players have to say, case-in-point these infantile KOS lists
FD's rules as it relates to Open Play? I'd like to read them if they are listed somewhere.
Combat Logging Punishment Proposal
Who's rules?
Players? Not relevant nor am I interested in what players have to say, case-in-point these infantile KOS lists
FD's rules as it relates to Open Play? I'd like to read them if they are listed somewhere.
No goods ideas?
Ok then.
So, I just looked through 10 pages of history and i can't find my CLogging Fix.
So I'm typing it, again. (This is probably why I can never find it, it's not one of my threads... Lol)
A tagging system.
When you enter any form of danger (anything that requires the 15 second timer to legally exit the game), a "tag" is placed on your save, which contains some information.
When you leave danger, the tag is removed. You'd be none the wiser.
If you illegally combat log, or have a CTD, server error, etc, while in danger, the tag would not be removed.
This tag is then read when loading the game, and using the information it stored, will only allow you to re-enter your previous mode for a limited time.
I particularly like this idea, because if you're just going about your business and suffer a server failure or CTD while in danger, you simply reload the game and continue as normal, in your previous mode, which we all do anyway.
But if you're intentionally combat logging in PvP, your only options are to rejoin the same mode, where your opponent may be waiting. Or don't play at all.
No one is ever barred entirely from the game, and accidental disconnects are not punished.
CMDR Cosmic Spacehead
Give it a few weeks, and I'll be looking for this post again.
See, I would completely disagree
Nowhere is it stipulated by FD that Open Play is tantamount to Consensual PvP in an adversarial context. Yes, Open is obviously player-interaction, which is the drawing card of the mode. It is however NOT consent to combat-orientated gameplay. That said, there is obviously always the chance that that specific aspect of gameplay will be forced on an individual not wanting any part of said gameplay, which in certain instances leads to task-killing......
Which brings us back to the original question: Yes, the rules have been broken. That does however not answer the question as to what the extent of the harm suffered by the 'aggrieved party' was.
Lost his 'easy kill' bragging rights? Boo-hoo.
Any other harm?
The harm is to the environment of open mode itself, not necessarily the ego or sentiments of an individual Cmdr. Clogging has been stated as a cheat and that overrides anyone's interpretation of personal 'values'; be they ethics, morals or any other justification of an exception to a rule.
Other play modes exist for those who dislike the flavor of the open environment, including the highly popular Mobius. To see someone clogging on you, blatantly cheating the game in your instance, is a deflating gameplay experience for me. It's also demoralizing in terms of having accepted the conditions and risks of open mode from other players only to see that belittled by a cheater.
I hope Clogging is the next exploit that comes under scrutiny and has actions implemented to address it - especially in open mode.
Again, I am trying to ascertain the consequences of breaking said rules, preferably in short, concise bullet-points
The two principal consequences of immortality cheating are actually inflicted upon the game as a whole, not the individual(s) who happen to be instanced with the immortality cheat, whether that immortality cheater happens to be a combat logger or a hacker.
They undermine the integrity of the multiplayer environment. They are:
(A) Using an immortality cheat in order to prevent the game's loss mechanic from being distributed according to the Developers' design
(i.e. if the Developers intended you to rebuy, you should rebuy, same as if the Developers intended you to use 3 x g5 mats, you should use 3 x g5 mats, not 1 x g1 mat)
Every single immortality cheater, whatever their personal ethics/reasons/rationalisation/opinions about what future C&P releases should or should not hold (for example), has task-killed or hacked in order to prevent the game's loss mechanic from being distributed according to the Developer's design.
Their opinions about how a hypothetical game that they have never personally developed or coded or sold to the public would punish players who attack other players has absolutely nothing to do with that. They are playing Elite Dangerous, with the Elite Dangerous crime & punishment system, as it prevails from patch to patch.
(B) Damaging the plausibility of the game environment by using an out-of-game method (e.g. making their ship disappear) in order to achieve the 100% selfish OOC objective of retaining in-game assets
Once again, the opinions of the immortality cheat about whether the game should permit whatever peril they are in to be inflicted upon them have nothing to do with the above. It does permit it. If they are the victim of a bug, they should contact Frontier Support. If they are the victims of PvP attack, opinions about that circumstance have absolutely nothing to do with cheating to find a way out of it. We are not playing according to the individual rules of 2,000,000 online strangers to whom we have paid no money.
I repeat that both of the above are crimes against the game as a whole, not the individual, group, faction etc. that is the adversary at the time.
However, turning as invited to the effect upon individuals, groups or factions ...
... immortality cheaters promote themselves over adversaries in various ways:
1. The explorer who cheats to preserve data and thus gets his name on systems in place of a Cmdr whose journey overlapped with his, or future Cmdrs. (Perhaps especially if, as David Braben has specifically stated, another explorer would have liked to kill him as a competitor, to prevent that data ever being handed in.)
2. The CG-er who cheats to preserve bounties or combat bonds and thus secures a top spot or percentage in place of another Cmdr competing in the same CG.
3. The Powerplayer who cheats in order to preserve merits he is delivering to fortify a system, thus preventing players from another Power from successfully undermining that system. (This alone is capable of wrecking an entire major release - Powerplay - and there are respected posters on this forum who have publicly stated that they have abandoned Powerplay as a result.)
4. The UA-bomber who cheats when his drives or FSD are blown out, thus preserving and delivering his Unknown Artefacts and taking another player group's station offline.
5. The BGS-attacker who works with a wing, destroying NPC authority ships and cheating when threatened so as most efficiently to tank the influence of a rival player group.
6. The sidewinder-killer who cheats when Adle's Armada catches them in Eravate, enabling them to destroy thousands (literally, thousands) of new players' ships without risk. (How this has been permitted to endure is beyond me.)
7. The Wanted Cmdr who cheats, preserving ship, bounty and place on bounty board, and preventing PvP bounty hunting from being pursued, even though the PvP bounty hunter may have searched for hours - playing the game as intended - for a target, having spent weeks outfitting a ship for the purpose in the reasonable expectation that cheating would be prevented, or punished.
8. The trader who cheats, preserving cargo, and preventing PvP piracy from being pursued, even though the PvP pirate may have searched for hours - playing the game as intended - for a target, having spent weeks outfitting a ship for the purpose in the reasonable expectation that cheating would be prevented, or punished.
Every one of the above is merely cheating to win by self-imposing an - in effect - hacked version of the game client upon everybody else, so as to play a version of the game within which their hull cannot be damaged and their cargo bay cannot be opened.
About two years ago FDev stated that several players had been banned for using hacks to take the top spots in Conflict Zone CG's. Does anyone disagree with those bans? No.
Yet a task-kill is precisely the same as an immortality, hull always >1% hack. I do not understand the double standards on this. It can't just be about detection because forum users whose Cmdr names are the same as their forum names brazenly admit to it, here on the game company's own forum. There are other games companies who would have banned their game account instantly. And rightly so.
Last edited:
What is the extent of this harm?
It's necessary to quantify the harm. One cannot just rely on the statement that harm is done: That's a given as rules have been broken. Harmful factors needs to be listed in order to facilitate a reasoned discussion of possible repurcussions.
Who's rules?
Players? Not relevant nor am I interested in what players have to say, case-in-point these infantile KOS lists
FD's rules as it relates to Open Play? I'd like to read them if they are listed somewhere.
I believe it was something about Strong and Stable PVP... or was it Rare and Meaningful Government? I dunno, it's all the same nonsense in the current environment.
At no point did FDev ever say that Open would be a free-for-all gank-fest though, unless DBOBE said it on reddit while the adults were busy...
So true.
Fact is that FD needs to firstly sort their house (Elite Dangerous Universe) out before they can start flinging stones. Until then, any type of sanction imposed will smack of hypocrisy.
Last edited:
Who's rules?
Players? Not relevant nor am I interested in what players have to say, case-in-point these infantile KOS lists
FD's rules as it relates to Open Play? I'd like to read them if they are listed somewhere.
No, the rules that FD has laid out, not players. Players can set the rules in private groups. There's a TOS one has to abide by, yes? Combat logging is in breach of that tos, no? Those rules. So far we were having a pretty good discussion. Why the eye roll? As I said, I'd be happy with a crime and punishment system being implemented. Hunting other players in Open is actually advertised as a featured attraction to buying ED, lest you forget.
I think choosing which rules you'll abide by and which you won't is more hypocritical. As to what FD condones, all I have to ask is why did they implement the Grom missiles (and make fsd reboot an acquirable engineer effect for dumbfires)?
As I said, I'd like to see them as it relates specifically to Open Play, specifically whether I am automatically consenting to adversarial PvP when I join Open Play.
Yes, I specifically stated in post #118 that I agree: Task-killing is against the T.O.S. That has never been in dispute, never
Player-groups acting like the school-playground bully, puffing their pectorals and beating their chests, putting any Open Player which does something which offends their delicate constitutions on a Kill-On-Sight list........
Really irks me.
Now it would have been different if this was actually condoned by FD.
It's not, is it? Please tell me it's not.....
You and me both
Yeah, in a perfect ED world, maybe. You and me both know that at present the ED Universe falls well short of the advertised 'Utopia'.
Irrelevant if you are the rule-breaker
The conduct of the law-maker is what is relevant here: They need to sort their own house out before the first asteroid is hurled.
Last edited:
Yes.
Incidentally, the fact that it is vastly quicker and safer for the subject of an FSD reset attack to use the 15 second menu quit than other methods of escape is just one illustration of how anomalously short that timer is.
I hope that when Frontier increase punishments for task-killers, they also increase the 15 second menu quit timer to the point that it could never be tactically advantageous to use it within combat. Like they correctly did in Beta 2.2 with shield reboot.
As I said, I'd like to see them as it relates specifically to Open Play, specifically whether I am automatically consenting to adversarial PvP when I join Open Play.
Yes, I specifically stated in post #118 that I agree: Task-killing is against the T.O.S. That has never been in dispute, never
Player-groups acting like the school-playground bully, puffing their pectorals and beating their chests, putting any Open Player which does something which offends their delicate constitutions on a Kill-On-Sight list........
Really irks me.
Now it would have been different if this was actually condoned by FD.
It's not, is it? Please tell me it's not.....
You and me both
Yeah, in a perfect ED world, maybe. You and me both know that at present the ED Universe falls well short of the advertised 'Utopia'.
Irrelevant if you are the rule-breaker
The conduct of the law-maker is what is relevant here: They need to sort their own house out before the first asteroid is hurled.
Not sure where we can go from here. You acknowledge that one behaviour is against the rules and the other is not. What more is to this discussion?
The first stone has been thrown and to rave reviews. Most of us are still smiling over FDs dogged action on the the crew who abused the engineer exploit. Now we're moving along to other issues. So let's discuss what we feel would be the appropriate reaction by FD on combat logging and they'll peruse the thread and come to their own conclusions.
There is obviously some misunderstanding here
There is only one behaviour that is relevant to the discussion: Task-Killing. I have obviously admitted that this is against the rules.
Not quite sure what other behaviour it is that you are referring to.
Be that as it may, as I said before, the discussion needs to be what factors of harm is actually being done by task-killing. Once they have been satisfactorily formulated, only then can we begin to discuss what possible reasonable sanctions FD can impose. Even then things are not quite cut-and-dried, as we then have to confront the other fact that, at present, Open Play is a mess, making any attempt by FD at addressing the issue, as said, patently hypocritical.
Last edited:
This thread is for discussing potential reprisals resulting from disconnecting while your ship is in danger, allowing for accidental occasions & discouraging repeated deliberate (tactical) use.
If you would like to discuss whether this (deliberate, tactical) behaviour should be considered a cheat/exploit at all, please start your own thread
It seems self evident to me that leaving the game to avoid the consequences of decisions made while playing the game is not intended behaviour & should be discouraged.
If you would like to discuss whether this (deliberate, tactical) behaviour should be considered a cheat/exploit at all, please start your own thread
It seems self evident to me that leaving the game to avoid the consequences of decisions made while playing the game is not intended behaviour & should be discouraged.
Last edited:
There is obviously some misunderstanding here
There is only one behaviour that is relevant to the discussion: Task-Killing. I have obviously admitted that this is against the rules.
Not quite sure what other behaviour it is that you are referring to.
Be that as it may, as I said before, the discussion needs to be what factors of harm is actually being done by task-killing. Once they have been satisfactorily formulated, only then can we begin to discuss what possible reasonable sanctions FD can impose. Even then things are not quite cut-and-dried, as we then have to confront the other fact that, at present, Open Play is a mess, making any attempt by FD at addressing the issue, as said, patently hypocritical.
I suppose that's where we somewhat disagree. I think the issue is how to discourage it sufficiently for it to stop.
As I mentioned previously, the moment FD sorts their house out and addresses the patent shortcomings in the Elite Dangerous Universe is the moment you see task-killing drop by 80%, if not more.
Once that gets done, one can step back and objectively ascertain how to best deal with the 20% remainder.
If you would like to discuss whether this (deliberate, tactical) behaviour should be considered a cheat/exploit at all, please start your own thread
Good Lord how many times must I repeat that I agree that it is against the rules.
Do you just not read my posts? I am honestly flabbergasted as to how you might think from my posts that I am of the opinion that task-killing is not a cheat/exploit and against the rules.......
Seriously?
Obviously.
It's the manner in which said discouragement should take place that should be the topic of the discussion, as I said in countless posts above, obviously adhering to the principle that the 'punishment' should fit the 'crime', so to speak.
Last edited:
So, to be clear. Your opinion is that for the time being, nothing be done about it.
No.
Something needs to be done.
I would argue that in the greater scheme of things, urgency to get it done right this very minute is farcical. There are waaaay to many other things that need done that takes precedence.
In my opinion it is probably prudent for FD to sort out Open Play prior to addressing task-killing, which is why I said that by doing so, the problem will probably take care of itself by a large margin.
So no, you misunderstood me. In my opinion, for the time being, FD should definitely do something about it and cleaning up their lounge (Open Play) would be a damned good place to start. That way when it does come time to throw stones, FD will be able to cast said stones with a modicum of credibility.
Thats the trick to fixing it, making it so it's not actually necessary to Clog.
The main thing is to Remove the the high risk/fear that players have towards Greifers when it comes to the costly rebuys and time losses players have experienced, due to Greifing. I know the Cry me a river crowd will say get gud or some other shizzel, but the bear fact is some players will not ever get gud, or want to. So having several million wiped out from thier funds will hurt, especially if the player spent weeks getting it in the first case.
You only have to take a read through the new players thread to see how many people quit the game in the first few days of playing due to rebuys and how "hard" it is.
My starter system was Evarate, when I started there was nobody there in open so I was ok. The other day I took a visit there were several players camped out sniping noobs
A while back I came to the rescue of a trader who was being attacked, he only had small pulse lasers and had his ship rigged for max storage, so from his point he has his rebuy to think about and his maxed out T9 cargo hold full of expensive stuff.
The attacker nearly took me to the rebuy screen but luckily for me and the other player, a guy in an Anaconda turned up and wasted him.
It would have been all to easy to Clog for everyone involved in that but nobody did.
i think it requires a few base level changes to the way the game plays out this will if set correctly would cure this and many more ills.