They deleted the ability to report specifically for combat logging anyway mate.
They don't care anymore.
Last edited by a moderator:
Opinions on combat logging
- Thread starter mephisto9466
- Start date
They don't care anymore.
My personal opinion is that if a wing of players gank a noob, then that noob pulling the plug is their way of dealing with it...it’s morally just as wrong to gank a noob as it is to pull the plug.
Gankers will always gank ...noobs will always clog as they haven’t learned evasion...again personally I’d like to see some kind of anti friendly fire against new players, let them learn the ropes at their own pace.
Gankers will always gank ...noobs will always clog as they haven’t learned evasion...again personally I’d like to see some kind of anti friendly fire against new players, let them learn the ropes at their own pace.
When I choose to stop software running it is my choice as to how I do it.
Nobody can stop me.
Nobody can tell me not to.
When a software company pays for the computer or lends me one then fine but until then. It's my hardware and I'll do whatever I choose to at any point with it.
Having said that, logging out of a game because you are about to lose is just about the most pathetic thing a player can do. A real gamer would not do this.
When create your account for an on-line service (such as accessing an MMO game environment) you agree to abide by the rules of use of that service.
When you install a piece of software, there is typically a step to acknowledge that you accept the terms of use stated in the EULA.
ED has a mix of both and they can stipulate how you personally use their software and on-line services, if you breech those terms then FD have the right to impose direct restrictions on your use of the on-line services and/or their software.
I don't necessarily disagree, but using the menu timer to log out is permitted. On the other hand, Combat logging as FD define it is not.
However, I would point at my earlier post that listed different circumstances to illustrate at least a subset of the potential cases that could occur.
and randomly killing people abides by the rules so we agree
we can do what we want and will do what we want regardless of what each other thinks of the other.
yay democracy
Indeed. LOL
One of these days, perhaps it may change- Frontier might actually grow a pair and define what "griefing" and "combat logging" actually are- but until that day democracy rules the day.
Ian Phillips
Volunteer Moderator
Lets get this back on topic please.
Who reported who, for whatever reason, has nothing to do with the OP.
Who reported who, for whatever reason, has nothing to do with the OP.
I think we're at a global impasse until FD precisely define what is griefing and what is combat logging, and why menu logging (logging out during combat) is considered OK even though it's basically combat logging.
We've been getting nowhere for 88 pages now, it's basically just thinly veiled insults until someone gets mad (guilty) and says something they shouldn't
It is not expressly prohibited but...
Nope, there are notional limits to behaviours including when people engage using PvP. Those limits are subjective but still there and enforceable by FD.
I'm a vegan who thinks meat is murder and this current Community Goal is problematic.
How else am I supposed to stop the mass-murder of Manatees other than shooting down traders until they realise that it just isn't morally right to profit off of murder.
I also have to support my brethren who are being genocided for their view that Manatees should live free, in the form of "Bounty Hunting" by the oppressing Imperial Faction at Munshin.
Griefing can not be clearly and unambiguously defined... we have been over that topic. However, if you consider it as a form of harassment using PvP then that is probably as close to a clear definition as you are going to get.
Combat Logging has been clearly defined by FD, that has been explained several times already in this very thread. The distinction from Combat Logging has also been clearly spelled out with FD as a source.
As for why menu logging during combat should be considered OK, the imposition of the 15s timer during which the player is unable to defend their in-game assets and damage can be incurred during that time regardless of the build of the person leaving. The timer covers more than just combat circumstances which is why it should not be changed.
tautology brah
I'm already certain FD have defined (in an ambiguous way) what griefing is... they have also concluded that combat logging is OK as long as you wait 15 seconds...
How about we cut out the middle man, set a timer, make a cup of tea and ALT+F4 15 seconds after being interdicted?
What is the difference between these two?
You would lose if you placed a bet, the assessment of incidents is rather subjective in nature and has grey areas.
There is a wiki definition for griefing but even that is not completely unambiguous.
To clarify: What makes it subjective is it is dependent on the effect on the target from the target's perspective and the assessment of intent of the accused by FD.
Not combat logging... you can't just sit and wait for 15s then Alt-F4 (or otherwise) terminate your gaming session and claim it is legit. Application and other logs could prove what has happened.
Menu logging is not combat logging, this has been explained countless times.
Menu logging is not combat logging, this has been explained countless times.
The difference is that using the menu timer is enforced, and the software actively prevents you from defending yourself. You can reset the timer by aborting the menu exit too.
True combat logging is not managed in anyway and actively circumvents these measures.
Last edited:
You would lose if you placed a bet, the assessment of incidents is rather subjective in nature and has grey areas.
There is a wiki definition for griefing but even that is not completely unambiguous.
To clarify: What makes it subjective is it is dependent on the effect on the target from the target's perspective and the assessment of intent of the accused by FD.
Not combat logging... you can't just sit and wait for 15s then Alt-F4 (or otherwise) terminate your gaming session and claim it is legit. Application and other logs could prove what has happened.
Menu logging is not combat logging, this has been explained countless times.
The difference is that using the menu timer is enforced, and the software actively prevents you from defending yourself. You can reset the timer by aborting the menu exit too.
True combat logging is not managed in anyway and actively circumvents these measures.
There is literally no difference, that's the thing you seem to fail to grasp.
You are logging out during combat.
That is combat logging.
Look at literally any other game and find me one that describes it in the same way FD do.
FD cannot be bothered to fix it, it's as simple as that.
Ganking is just overkill - in supercruise you can get an idea of the role of another Cmdr by looking at their list of modules, an activity I enjoy & do as part of the IFF process. A dedicated exploration build is usually easy to spot, plus a returning explorer may be a little out of practice but they also carry enormous BGS influencing potential that unlike most player activities is failrly easy to predict - they will be increasing the influence of the controlling faction of the station they are headed towards.
An explorer returning with a large amount of data, in a highly optimised (for jump range) ship, in open is a vulnerable and easy target with an effect of the BGS that can be predicted better than most. Stay on your toes.
In March I returned from an 18 month grand tour of the galaxy. I play in Open, I explore in Open (not saying much, the threat is vanishingly small), I entered Colonia for the first time in Open having no idea of the reception I would receive, and I returned to the bubble in Open carrying an enormous amount of BGS influence.
So I was careful. I chose my entry point and time carefully (I returned at about 2am local time), my ship was armed & armoured, I checked every ship in supercruise and I didn't fly straight from the star to the dock, I gave the shipping lanes a wide berth.
Later I used some of that data to re-take control of my home system at the time, which had been flipped while I was away. I didn't find out who I was competing against until one of their team came to investigate who had managed to flip one of 'their' systems back, but as it turned out I flipped a Hudson Controlled system - ie I singlehandedly managed a surprise victory against an entire powerplay player group. That's how much potential an explorer is carrying.
So someone might well want to prevent you from doing that. But others will want to help you. Most explorers don't care a jot about the BGS and are happy to sell their data to help a BGS playing friend if asked - that friend will be motivated to help you dock as much as another might be to kill you, and that is the game I enjoy
Or just switch to solo.
That's an interesting element I hadn't considered.Ganking is just overkill - in supercruise you can get an idea of the role of another Cmdr by looking at their list of modules, an activity I enjoy & do as part of the IFF process. A dedicated exploration build is usually easy to spot, plus a returning explorer may be a little out of practice but they also carry enormous BGS influencing potential that unlike most player activities is failrly easy to predict - they will be increasing the influence of the controlling faction of the station they are headed towards.
An explorer returning with a large amount of data, in a highly optimised (for jump range) ship, in open is a vulnerable and easy target with an effect of the BGS that can be predicted better than most. Stay on your toes.
In March I returned from an 18 month grand tour of the galaxy. I play in Open, I explore in Open (not saying much, the threat is vanishingly small), I entered Colonia for the first time in Open having no idea of the reception I would receive, and I returned to the bubble in Open carrying an enormous amount of BGS influence.
So I was careful. I chose my entry point and time carefully (I returned at about 2am local time), my ship was armed & armoured, I checked every ship in supercruise and I didn't fly straight from the star to the dock, I gave the shipping lanes a wide berth.
Later I used some of that data to re-take control of my home system at the time, which had been flipped while I was away. I didn't find out who I was competing against until one of their team came to investigate who had managed to flip one of 'their' systems back, but as it turned out I flipped a Hudson Controlled system - ie I singlehandedly managed a surprise victory against an entire powerplay player group. That's how much potential an explorer is carrying.
So someone might well want to prevent you from doing that. But others will want to help you. Most explorers don't care a jot about the BGS and are happy to sell their data to help a BGS playing friend if asked - that friend will be motivated to help you dock as much as another might be to kill you, and that is the game I enjoy
Or just switch to solo.
I honestly superficially played powerplay just to get the weapons and modules.
Incoming explorers might be greeted by a griefer or a "concerned party" looking to investigate whether he's supporting their cause or about to bomb it to pieces with months of work.
Of course all of it is trumped by the ever present solo so it's an interesting mechanic that can just be completely skipped over lol.
There is a substantial and measurable difference, that is what you fail to grasp.
As for FD "fixing it", the fundamental issue with enforcing persistence (even just for 15s of timer) in the forced/early termination case is that it can be exploited by those with less reputable intent. Such persistence can be done in peer-to-peer architectures where there is a central account management server (c/f ED) and it would not (or should not) require additional computational resource on the server either.
However, no - menu logging is not combat logging in the sense of the accepted definition for ED and it is irrelevant what other games may or may not define it as.
You don't need to enforce persistence, you can just make the timer longer than 15 seconds.
30 would be fine, or it could reset each time you take damage like it does in tonnes of games and as another CMDR suggested.
If people start pulling the plug as a result, roll out the bans.
Simple.
I know that you want to be able to menu log, but I'm sorry, it's just exploiting a mechanic in the game to escape the consequences of combat.
Honestly I can't understand you half the time it's just a load of big words strung together.
If FD came out and said aimbots with 100% accuracy are accepted and not an exploit would you disagree with them?
Last edited:
And that is generally exploited by the more toxic PvPers, I have seen it happen in other games.
Nope, the arguments regarding increasing the timer and/or having the timer reset on incurring damage is fundamentally a flawed principle that FD should not adopt. It is a blatant pro-griefer/ganker agenda.
It has nothing to do with what I would personally do in combat circumstances, the timer itself has implications and usage cases outside of combat circumstances.
"fundamentally flawed principle"
It's not a principle stop using words that have no connection to what you're trying to say.
You are basing your opinions off of fundamentally flawed principles.
Case closed.
Wow that was so easy.