Opinions on combat logging

[Mohrgan]

Nah I've just realised that you'll defend ED to the death and justify it with something...

You're not as bad as that rlsm guy who literally weaves lies constantly to justify every facet of FD's laziness. But your indifference and apathy is pretty irritating to be frank.

I'd be surprised if you told me you weren't clinically depressed. Drawing some parallels.

pls no report.


I do not care what you think,

go report someone else.

No reports from me. You mistake my maturity for apathy. You'll find I am quite passionate over certain subjects. Like my absolute loathing for all things 'open-only'.

But, even so, I endeavor to discredit issues, rather than other players. Trying to stereotype my lifestyle or personality, and diagnose any kind of condition I could have, are just desperate attempts to deflect my comments. It's just the usual stuffs around here.

 

[lenna]

It's funny. I've played since release, and I have never come across any reason to report anybody. Not once. I flew with a PvP oriented player group, in open, for about a year too. Nothing...

I think the problem with reporting incidents is not everyone will see things the same way and not everyone will encounter people with the same mentalities.

My impression is that certain toxic behaviours tend to be most common at specific times of the day - based on my experience with GTA Online. I have noted certain patterns amongst the kinds of players that engage in those toxic behaviours and the kinds of players that defend said behaviours. Both tend to be rather insulting if not abusive/harassing in their communications on the topic too.

The behaviours in question are far from the norm and tend to not target anyone they think is not easy prey which is fundamentally why I think at least some do not get targeted by such behaviours and may not bare witness to the full scope of them.

 

[lenna]

I do not care what you think,

go report someone else.

I will report anyone I feel it is appropriate to report, and I don't actually care what you think of it.

Ultimately, those categories are the in-game reporting categories for in-game behaviours, if anyone witnesses reportable incidents in-game they are entitled to report the offending party.

 

[CMDR M. Lehman]

I will report anyone I feel it is appropriate to report, and I don't actually care what you think of it.

Ultimately, those categories are the in-game reporting categories for in-game behaviours, if anyone witnesses reportable incidents in-game they are entitled to report the offending party.

I'm still curious as to if you're going to report my Fer de Lance. Six modded resistance boosters on that thing, after all.

Should be a slam-dunk case since it breaks the EULA, right?

 

[Bob Lighthouse]

What a confused person!

 

[Riverside]

I think the problem with reporting incidents is not everyone will see things the same way and not everyone will encounter people with the same mentalities.

My impression is that certain toxic behaviours tend to be most common at specific times of the day - based on my experience with GTA Online. I have noted certain patterns amongst the kinds of players that engage in those toxic behaviours and the kinds of players that defend said behaviours. Both tend to be rather insulting if not abusive/harassing in their communications on the topic too.

The behaviours in question are far from the norm and tend to not target anyone they think is not easy prey which is fundamentally why I think at least some do not get targeted by such behaviours and may not bare witness to the full scope of them.

Yeah, most of my gank mitigation is simply to play after bedtime. I still meet plenty of players but they aren't the short attention span type.

I've played in Open for years, I visit engineers sites, I travel all over the bubble. I don't do many CGs any more and I don't follow how-to guides or get-rich-schemes so I probably don't visit the same famous waterholes as other players (it's a procedurally generated system, there's nothing special about the famous ones) and I generally don't have a problem.

But I can appreciate that amongst the hyperbole & sarcasm there are genuine issues, like TrueSilver's tales of sealclubbers that CLog when the tables are turned and plenty of others so I accept that there genuinely is a problem that needs to be addressed. Personally I am less concerned that some gank squad was denied their opportunity to squat on some guy's face but their frothing supports my agenda.

How much of a problem ragequitting is clearly is endlessly debatable, but it is a problem.

 

[Sylveria]

Seems to me, the real challenge for Frontier in all of these combat logging arguments- is proof of intent. That's on either side of the fence here.

In my opinion- those who fire on unarmed ships or those that lack defensive capability are cowards. It's like shooting at unarmed civilians in a warzone. You know fully well that they can't defend themselves, yet seek to destroy just for the sake of destruction. That's why things like "war crimes" and "rules of engagement" exist.

If you're a "griefer" trying to establish your defense in this sort of situation, sorry to say- but you're still a coward at the end of the day. If you're a combat logger who had already engaged another target in return, you're also a coward, plain and simple. Don't want to fight? Don't start none- don't get none.

Those who log because they lack defensive capability in an engagement are simply trying to escape- as would anyone with common sense if you're being fired upon and have nothing to defend yourself with in return. That's not "circumventing game mechanics", that's flight when you can't fight.

The challenge for Frontier is to establish intent on both sides of this fence. Then they'll be able to address this "issue".

 

[philngraves]

Seems to me, the real challenge for Frontier in all of these combat logging arguments- is proof of intent. That's on either side of the fence here.

In my opinion- those who fire on unarmed ships or those that lack defensive capability are cowards. It's like shooting at unarmed civilians in a warzone. You know fully well that they can't defend themselves, yet seek to destroy just for the sake of destruction. That's why things like "war crimes" and "rules of engagement" exist.

If you're a "griefer" trying to establish your defense in this sort of situation, sorry to say- but you're still a coward at the end of the day. If you're a combat logger who had already engaged another target in return, you're also a coward, plain and simple. Don't want to fight? Don't start none- don't get none.

Those who log because they lack defensive capability in an engagement are simply trying to escape- as would anyone with common sense if you're being fired upon and have nothing to defend yourself with in return. That's not "circumventing game mechanics", that's flight when you can't fight.

The challenge for Frontier is to establish intent on both sides of this fence. Then they'll be able to address this "issue".

One side of pvp that you seem to be missing is that, despicable as it may seem, sometimes shooting unarmed vessels isn't so much the intent, but rather killing any ship you see.

This isn't always some random murderhobo spree. Often it is meant as a provocation. There are murderhobos and there are the defenders. Due to differences in general mentality, the two groups rarely have any type of contact or communication, much like rival street gangs. In these scenarios, raising a little hell in a system is the action. Luring in the defenders is the reaction. Then the real pvp begins as the two groups call in friends, form wings, and then proceed to engage one another sometimes for hours.

Point is, not every attack on a ship that isn't armed has anything to do with them being unarmed. They are the stick with which we poke the bear. And sticks are disposable.

 

[Asp Explorer]

And sticks are disposable.

And so are players you don't really want to waste your game time on.

 

[Sylveria]

One side of pvp that you seem to be missing is that, despicable as it may seem, sometimes shooting unarmed vessels isn't so much the intent, but rather killing any ship you see.

This isn't always some random murderhobo spree. Often it is meant as a provocation. There are murderhobos and there are the defenders. Due to differences in general mentality, the two groups rarely have any type of contact or communication, much like rival street gangs. In these scenarios, raising a little hell in a system is the action. Luring in the defenders is the reaction. Then the real pvp begins as the two groups call in friends, form wings, and then proceed to engage one another sometimes for hours.

Point is, not every attack on a ship that isn't armed has anything to do with them being unarmed. They are the stick with which we poke the bear. And sticks are disposable.

Masking attacks at unarmed ships as "provocation" still shows intent. Obfuscation of the point does not disprove the point.

Excusing one's actions for "greater cause" or "overall purpose" isn't a solid argument, IMO. How does that relate to actual instances of attacking unarmed civilians?

"But, we did it so we could get the ENEMY to take up arms!" Yeah, that's a good one. (bonus points if you do some research on a certain Admiral in WWII who approved unrestricted submarine warfare against neutral vessels...)

I'm not "missing" anything here.

 

[philngraves]

Masking attacks at unarmed ships as "provocation" still shows intent. Obfuscation of the point does not disprove the point.

Excusing one's actions for "greater cause" or "overall purpose" isn't a solid argument, IMO. How does that relate to actual instances of attacking unarmed civilians?

"But, we did it so we could get the ENEMY to take up arms!" Yeah, that's a good one. (bonus points if you do some research on a certain Admiral in WWII who approved unrestricted submarine warfare against neutral vessels...)

I'm not "missing" anything here.

Elite lets you roleplay as a bad guy all you want. Sometimes the Joker blows up a theme park to get Batman to come play.

Point was, the game is really flippin big, and getting the 'good' guys to come fight nearly always requires some 'dastardly deed' that forces them to take up arms. When said deed is being performed, I personally don't give a crap what modules the ship has. I only ever check modules if they are of high combat rank in a combat ship, or if they are in any ship that seems to be taking an unusually long time to kill.

Ran into a guy in a type 9 'battle-cattle' once doing this... best fight ever. Mostly because I like to pvp in an iEagle and his turrets and fighter nearly wrote my epitaph... talk about a fun surprise.

Edit: Oh, and I almost forgot to point out: players are all combatants in Elite. True story.

 

[Sylveria]

Elite lets you roleplay as a bad guy all you want. Sometimes the Joker blows up a theme park to get Batman to come play.

Point was, the game is really flippin big, and getting the 'good' guys to come fight nearly always requires some 'dastardly deed' that forces them to take up arms. When said deed is being performed, I personally don't give a crap what modules the ship has. I only ever check modules if they are of high combat rank in a combat ship, or if they are in any ship that seems to be taking an unusually long time to kill.

Ran into a guy in a type 9 'battle-cattle' once doing this... best fight ever. Mostly because I like to pvp in an iEagle and his turrets and fighter nearly wrote my epitaph... talk about a fun surprise.

Edit: Oh, and I almost forgot to point out: players are all combatants in Elite. True story.

My point is to highlight that views of others actions as "despicable" can be twofold. That's why I said that Frontier's challenge is to prove intent.

When we see almost daily threads about "combat logging" because some view those who log off in combat as despicable, it can equally be viewed for those who shoot unarmed vessels as thus, too. If people are serious about Frontier addressing this "issue", (which personally I really don't see one, as the argument for "no rules" gameplay goes both ways) then there needs to be justification proven of the intention of the accused.

Again- "no rules" goes both ways. You can't just have it YOUR way.

 

[philngraves]

My point is to highlight that views of others actions as "despicable" can be twofold. That's why I said that Frontier's challenge is to prove intent.

When we see almost daily threads about "combat logging" because some view those who log off in combat as despicable, it can equally be viewed for those who shoot unarmed vessels as thus, too. If people are serious about Frontier addressing this "issue", (which personally I really don't see one, as the argument for "no rules" gameplay goes both ways) then there needs to be justification proven of the intention of the accused.

Again- "no rules" goes both ways. You can't just have it YOUR way.

Oh, I agree on that point, was just pointing out that even the unarmed vessel portion had its own variance of intent. And a little jibe at the coward part lol...
While I do find the act of 'sealclubbing' to be pointless and have never actually participated, wandering around in open play unarmed in multimillion dollar ships and expecting that you should be exempt from combat shows a lack of self preservation. Later game, the ability to log out bolsters a players sense of 'rightness' in running unarmed as they can just quit.

At the end of the day, there really isn't any going back in terms of engineering inflation or the lack of personal responsibility and both sides of the arguement kind of balance each other. They are both real issues that should be resolved, but I personally think the creation of a real, in game pvp mechanic would remedy greatly. Pvp'ers would have the ability to fight each other to their hearts content, and casual combantants would have far less to worry about in open... that or they could just seperate the modes of play in open. That honestly seems like the simplest first step forward.

 

[Sylveria]

Oh, I agree on that point, was just pointing out that even the unarmed vessel portion had its own variance of intent. And a little jibe at the coward part lol...
While I do find the act of 'sealclubbing' to be pointless and have never actually participated, wandering around in open play unarmed in multimillion dollar ships and expecting that you should be exempt from combat shows a lack of self preservation. Later game, the ability to log out bolsters a players sense of 'rightness' in running unarmed as they can just quit.

At the end of the day, there really isn't any going back in terms of engineering inflation or the lack of personal responsibility and both sides of the arguement kind of balance each other. They are both real issues that should be resolved, but I personally think the creation of a real, in game pvp mechanic would remedy greatly. Pvp'ers would have the ability to fight each other to their hearts content, and casual combantants would have far less to worry about in open... that or they could just seperate the modes of play in open. That honestly seems like the simplest first step forward.

I believe the best "step forward" from here is that rules be established by both sides- or none at all and equal agreement reached. Period. End of story.

This daily thread complaining about combat logging in an environment where no rules have yet been established either way is quite ridiculous. Either choose the mode that's appropriate for your playstyle and accept the consequences of your decision, or don't.

Essentially it's either stop complaining that others are logging out on you if they're to stop complaining about you shooting them in Open- or there needs to be some sort of groundwork laid as to rules of engagement and actions in combat. That's really the only thing that's going to "improve" PvP interaction in Open- because it's quite obvious although some live by their own rules, others clearly do not. If you seriously want Frontier to address this, then there needs to be bipartisan discussion and proposals- and not just partisan proposals. Open may be by it's very nature "de facto PvP", but the game certainly isn't based on nor centered around PvP- or PG/Solo would have never been introduced as menu choices from release.

 

[philngraves]

I believe the best "step forward" from here is that rules be established by both sides- or none at all and equal agreement reached. Period. End of story.

This daily thread complaining about combat logging in an environment where no rules have yet been established either way is quite ridiculous. Either choose the mode that's appropriate for your playstyle and accept the consequences of your decision, or don't.

Essentially it's either stop complaining that others are logging out on you if they're to stop complaining about you shooting them in Open- or there needs to be some sort of groundwork laid as to rules of engagement and actions in combat. That's really the only thing that's going to "improve" PvP interaction in Open- because it's quite obvious although some live by their own rules, others clearly do not. If you seriously want Frontier to address this, then there needs to be bipartisan discussion and proposals- and not just partisan proposals. Open may be by it's very nature "de facto PvP", but the game certainly isn't based on nor centered around PvP- or PG/Solo would have never been introduced as menu choices from release.

The issue with declaring rules is that the entity making the declaration must have a way of enforcing said rule. D/C logging has been a rule and frontier stated they were 'investigating' it for, what, 2 years now? Honestly, the biggest hurdle for frontier to overcome in making rules, is that enforcing them is labor intensive. Labor intensive action hurts the bottom line and that seriously limits the chance of being a reality.

Kickstarter for C&P/Clogging/PvP anyone?

I support your opinion Sylveria, I'm just far too jaded to every believe it would happen. Not without something to offset the cost of the labor deficit required to enforce the rules. I think I would rather have an Elite server side option that we have to pay a sub to play on. Keeping the current model and adding this would have it's own risks, but still sounds nice in theory.

 

[lenna]

Oh, I agree on that point, was just pointing out that even the unarmed vessel portion had its own variance of intent. And a little jibe at the coward part lol...
While I do find the act of 'sealclubbing' to be pointless and have never actually participated, wandering around in open play unarmed in multimillion dollar ships and expecting that you should be exempt from combat shows a lack of self preservation. Later game, the ability to log out bolsters a players sense of 'rightness' in running unarmed as they can just quit.

At the end of the day, there really isn't any going back in terms of engineering inflation or the lack of personal responsibility and both sides of the arguement kind of balance each other. They are both real issues that should be resolved, but I personally think the creation of a real, in game pvp mechanic would remedy greatly. Pvp'ers would have the ability to fight each other to their hearts content, and casual combantants would have far less to worry about in open... that or they could just seperate the modes of play in open. That honestly seems like the simplest first step forward.

There is no excuse for the kind of toxic random PvP that is being essentially referred to. As for adding structured PvP lessening the issue, nope - GTA Online has structured PvP yet there are still some that engage in comparable toxic behaviours. Also, FD have indicated their position regarding Open PvE and it seems it is clear that it will never happen (c/f the stream recording I referenced earlier) - though C&P/C&C may eventually impose a code of conduct making certain brands of PvP gameplay unfeasible without mutual co-operation (i.e. turning off the "report crimes against me" option).

Personally, I think anyone that runs around without either shields or weapons (or both) is being foolish, even in a purely PvE context. However, whether the target is armed or not it does not excuse unreasonable deliberate targeting of substantially weaker targets (in a combat sense) for PvP (regardless of relative ship hull value). FD have already tried separating PvP from PvE with CQC, the latter being the only real element of ED actually designed for PvPers. FD have tried to redress PowerPlay as a PvP focused tool but that ship sailed long ago. I just hope they do not try to spin Squadrons as an expressly "designed for PvP" tool either, that does not mean I would not be opposed to there being some formal mutually agreed declaration of conflict between two or more squadrons that would allow for structured PvP between those squadrons though.

 

[lenna]

I believe the best "step forward" from here is that rules be established by both sides- or none at all and equal agreement reached. Period. End of story.

This daily thread complaining about combat logging in an environment where no rules have yet been established either way is quite ridiculous.

There are established rules though - FD have set them and FD are incumbent to enforce them. The fundamental problem is not the rules, it is the enforcement, and FD seem to believe automated in-game mechanisms can do so. Personally, I disagree in the sense that automated in-game mechanisms lack the necessary pragmatism and subjective judgement ability to be able to do so in both a fair and appropriate manner. I applaud their attempts to do so, but ultimately they can never completely shed the shackles of responsibility any MMO developer imposes on themselves.

 

[lenna]

The issue with declaring rules is that the entity making the declaration must have a way of enforcing said rule. D/C logging has been a rule and frontier stated they were 'investigating' it for, what, 2 years now? Honestly, the biggest hurdle for frontier to overcome in making rules, is that enforcing them is labor intensive. Labor intensive action hurts the bottom line and that seriously limits the chance of being a reality.

Kickstarter for C&P/Clogging/PvP anyone?

I support your opinion Sylveria, I'm just far too jaded to every believe it would happen. Not without something to offset the cost of the labor deficit required to enforce the rules. I think I would rather have an Elite server side option that we have to pay a sub to play on. Keeping the current model and adding this would have it's own risks, but still sounds nice in theory.

Another option would be to keep Open as-is (with FD continuing with their attempts to enforce PvP behaviours via C&C/C&P), but add an explicitly PvP focused Open mode or some kind of War mode reminisce of CQC that uses main environment ships rather than constraining choices to SLFs only.

 

[Cmdr Kanonfoddar]

Is it considered 'ganking' to kill explorers returning to the bubble with multi hundred million credits worth of exploration data?

 

[Karacetamol]

If I open fire and your only recourse is to log off, either through the menu or through closing the game entirely, I think very unfavorably on that. There’s always something that can be done, and if you’re logging because your bad decisions bit you in the , then that won’t gain any sympathy from me. Just the wish that I could have a report menu on console.