PvP An Investigation Into Frontier's Actions on Combat Logging, Part 2

[Riverside]

It sounds like the usual bare minimum effort, all boxes ticked, now onto the next thing on the checklist approach I've come to expect.

That's a glass-half-empty way of looking at it

The parts of the games' design that I find frustratingly lacking in foresight are things like SRV vs SLF interaction. They should use very similar mechanisms & interactions, but instead are two separate & parallel lines of development. The SLF uses '3d printing' to allow multiple SLFs to be carried (if one is destroyed), the SRV requires you to install a bigger hanger. This is a situation where re-using existing assets (ideally creating the original SRV assets with SLF's future addition in mind).

So when we first saw megaship (essentially reskinned stations) & some of the community wanted one of their own, it shouldn't be a surprise that where an existing asset can be re-purposed, it should be rather than needlessly re-inventing the wheel.

 

[DR Grandreefer]

I think that the suggestion made by CMDR_Cosmicspacehead here is worth a look and is a good start towards a compromise solution:

https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showt...ent-Proposal?p=5643210&viewfull=1#post5643210

The advantages are that at first glance it doesn't seem too hard to implement, and that it does not punish people with bad connections in any way, so that's covered.

I don't know if the deterrent is strong enough, because of either networking or because of NPCs not being persistent. I wonder if the game would be able to add to the save game, made automatically when the ship enters the danger state, information about the nature of the threat, and then spawn NPCs based on that information in the instance which is created when that particular save game is loaded.

That is looking at it from a different way and I really like that idea. There is also many ways to build on that and tweak it either because the community has changed or some gameplay concepts that call for it in the future. Thanks for the link and your time CMDR. O7

 

[Stigbob]

That's a glass-half-empty way of looking at it

The parts of the games' design that I find frustratingly lacking in foresight are things like SRV vs SLF interaction. They should use very similar mechanisms & interactions, but instead are two separate & parallel lines of development. The SLF uses '3d printing' to allow multiple SLFs to be carried (if one is destroyed), the SRV requires you to install a bigger hanger. This is a situation where re-using existing assets (ideally creating the original SRV assets with SLF's future addition in mind).

So when we first saw megaship (essentially reskinned stations) & some of the community wanted one of their own, it shouldn't be a surprise that where an existing asset can be re-purposed, it should be rather than needlessly re-inventing the wheel.

To be fair to printable SLF's I can lose them faster than even the dual printers can keep up on a bad day, SRV's don't tend to get one shotted by NPC's as often. It's a bit gamey yes, but it's a good idea.

 

[Lucifer Hate]

Have not read every page so not sure if this has been posted here already

[video=youtube;4eL1cf27a4Y]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4eL1cf27a4Y&feature=youtu.be[/video]

 

[Riverside]

Have not read every page so not sure if this has been posted here already

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4eL1cf27a4Y&feature=youtu.be

This is the third time it's been posted in this thread I think. It was established fairly early on that FDev do take action, and that some are simply not happy with the levels that have been applied, but are unable or unwilling to come up with levels that they think are actually suitable.

The phrase 'impotent rage' comes to mind.

 

[Weps]

Exactly and that journalist may have done that already, and received information in return that convinced them not to touch a dubiously sourced story with a ten foot stick. That would certainly explain the lack of interest this time around.

The reported problem just isn't newsworthy.

Well at least one site showed interest so far:

https://www.pcgamesn.com/elite-dangerous/elite-dangerous-combat-logging-frontier

The most interesting bit is the final sentence. At least now we know what's what.

 

[Stigbob]

Well at least one site showed interest so far:

https://www.pcgamesn.com/elite-dangerous/elite-dangerous-combat-logging-frontier

The most interesting bit is the final sentence. At least now we know what's what.

"They recorded five incidents over the course of five months," wow so many why haven't CNN picked up on it yet.

The final sentence shouldn't really have the word community in it, maybe "niche group" or "small vocal section of" but community is stretching it a bit.

 

[Weps]

"They recorded five incidents over the course of five months," wow so many why haven't CNN picked up on it yet.

Maybe SDC should do a third test where they spam the support with hundreds of reports daily to see if they can get an account banned. [haha]

Actually they should just do it for the lols, if they do get an account banned, they could brag about being the first to ban someone on CLogging charges.

The final sentence shouldn't really have the word community in it, maybe "niche group" or "small vocal section of" but community is stretching it a bit.

What I was more interested in, is the evidence on the "no comment" approach from FDEV, when dealing with inquiries from news sites or YouTube content creators. Also watched the video above and it seems to be the same.

 

[Powderpanic]

Maybe SDC should do a third test where they spam the support with hundreds of reports daily to see if they can get an account banned. [haha]

Actually they should just do it for the lols, if they do get an account banned, they could brag about being the first to ban someone on CLogging charges.



What I was more interested in, is the evidence on the "no comment" approach from FDEV, when dealing with inquiries from news sites or YouTube content creators. Also watched the video above and it seems to be the same.

I find it weird that people dont think 5 counts of reported combat logging is enough to even trigger a "hey your internet sucks, here are a few things to try email"
Under the guise of oh it could be bad internet and because of that all combat logging is unimportant and can never be addressed because.. erm... PVP bad..

Yes it could be bad internet, but its not bad internet. Its someone killing their process and we are even told FDEV have a way to track this..

I'm all for fake news... really i am.. but come on...

I

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

"They recorded five incidents over the course of five months," wow so many why haven't CNN picked up on it yet.

The final sentence shouldn't really have the word community in it, maybe "niche group" or "small vocal section of" but community is stretching it a bit.

No, I like that. With the same parameters I could claim: luckily the community doesn't give a rats bottom about combat logging.

Because I don't you see. Now I just have to extrapolate myself into the community. I'm not sure what that means, but it sounds dirty.

 

[Stigbob]

Maybe SDC should do a third test where they spam the support with hundreds of reports daily to see if they can get an account banned. [haha]

On the one hand I think it's daft to waste supports time, but five instances in a week might be a little more significant in terms of people not just laughing at how trivial this all is.

Actually they should just do it for the lols, if they do get an account banned, they could brag about being the first to ban someone on CLogging charges.

The true comedy option would be banning accounts for making false reports.

What I was more interested in, is the evidence on the "no comment" approach from FDEV, when dealing with inquiries from news sites or YouTube content creators. Also watched the video above and it seems to be the same.

This "We reached out to Frontier for further comment, and they simply pointed back to those two statements." isn't a "no comment" it's a redirection to the already given official comments of the community managers.

 

[Weps]

And another one:

http://massivelyop.com/2018/01/09/e...t-its-not-addressing-combat-logging-exploits/

 

[Goose4291]

And another one:

http://massivelyop.com/2018/01/09/e...t-its-not-addressing-combat-logging-exploits/

Looking at those two links you posted, Im not surprised to see the '84 brigade justifying combat logging in the comments section of them.

 

[Arguendo]

It was established fairly early on that FDev do take action, and that some are simply not happy with the levels that have been applied, but are unable or unwilling to come up with levels that they think are actually suitable.

What actions have FDev applied after the last "investigation" around this time last year? I've seen evidence of a few cmdrs getting warnings back in March last year, but I have seen no recent evidence of FDev having taken any action against players who combatlog. And combatlogging didn't magically disappear during the summer of 2017.

 

[Stigbob]

And another one:

http://massivelyop.com/2018/01/09/e...t-its-not-addressing-combat-logging-exploits/

Did you notice they left out the bit about how it was only five instances over five months, almost as if it makes it sound trivial.

Looking at those two links you posted, Im not surprised to see the '84 brigade justifying combat logging in the comments section of them.

I had a quick look and couldn't see anyone actually condoning or justifying clogging, some condemnation of SDC though. I'm also struggling with why you think these invisible comments are somehow linked to the "84 brigade".

 

[CMDR Kyzer]

I wish they had an {OPEN PLAY-PVP} and {OPEN PLAY-PVE} option. Might help mitigate the issue.

 

[Deleted member 110222]

I wish they had an {OPEN PLAY-PVP} and {OPEN PLAY-PVE} option. Might help mitigate the issue.

It would certainly help. Though it wouldn't solve the problem completely.

Unfortunately, there will always be a group of players who have decided that they should have "PvP God status" given to them, despite being not-so-good at PvP.

Me? I acknowledge I'm not that good so I play in modes where PvP isn't a concern.

 

[Lucifer Hate]

I wish they had an {OPEN PLAY-PVP} and {OPEN PLAY-PVE} option. Might help mitigate the issue.

No because then piracy would be completely dead as traders could have open with zero risk. Piracy already has enough nails in the coffin without adding more.. There are already 2 modes other than open that people that do not want the risk of open can choose.

 

[CMDR Kyzer]

It would certainly help. Though it wouldn't solve the problem completely.

Unfortunately, there will always be a group of players who have decided that they should have "PvP God status" given to them, despite being not-so-good at PvP.

Me? I acknowledge I'm not that good so I play in modes where PvP isn't a concern.

I just want to be able to see other players without having to worry about a gank squad coming after my full cargo hold on my conda.

 

[CMDR Kyzer]

No because then piracy would be completely dead as traders could have open with zero risk. Piracy already has enough nails in the coffin without adding more.. There are already 2 modes other than open that people that do not want the risk of open can choose.

I understand what you're saying, however, Trading for hundreds of hours and never seeing another real player gets old, and the couple times ive done trading in open ive been poached by not pirates, just groups of players roaming together destroying ships for no reason. So I respect your stand to fly the jolly roger and steak peoples stuff, but some of us just wanna be peaceful space truckers.