The 15 second logout timer in action

I'm extremely doubtful of this.

As a player whose CMDR rarely initiates hostilities and almost never carries an interdictor, almost all of the deliberate disconnecting, and most of the menu logging, I see are on the part of the aggressors.

Combat logging needs to be recognized for what it is...not an understandable action when confronted with apparent griefing, but as a prime griefing tool, habitually used to undermine the legitimate gameplay of others.

:) But if it's indeed implemented, it practically eradicates the notion that it's only "PvErs" or "Carebears" who just want to "avoid risk" doing it.

It's the perfect way to test that assertion. The only people who would be in Open PvP are those who engage in PvP, after all. If Open PvE is a thing- there wouldn't be any need whatsoever for a PvEr to be in Open PvP anymore. Based on that logic- there's only ONE conclusion, thus those who blame PvErs wouldn't have that as a crutch to rely on anymore, no?
 
If you're shooting a specter it usually means an unclean connection loss, not a menu log out. Ships using the menu disappear almost immediately after the timer and take damage almost to the end, while a disconnection requires the ship to time out, which can take several seconds during which no damage is taken and the last input is usually repeated.

A ship flying straight doesn't necessarily mean they are logging off either. If the velocities of the vessels in question are close enough and the pursuer doesn't have long range weapons, fleeing in a straight line, as risky as it is, may be the only way to open up distance. Also, if a ship's thrusters are disabled or unpowered (either from damage or during a reboot) the ship will be adrift, flying in a straight line on whatever vector it had prior to the thrusters shutting down.

Indeed, I regularly encounter situations where a logout or disconnection is assumed, and people turn back, when, in reality the vessel being perused just went dark.

Here's an example:


My wingman was pulled over, fought his attacker for a bit, had his thrusters shot out, after which the attacker apparently left when he couldn't immediately reacquire contact...either that or he specifically left the ship stricken as bait for my CMDR, but that's a far less likely scenario as it requires a string of unlikely assumption to be true.



Still not a counter to the time wasted prior to them disconnecting/logging out.

My CMDR has been in situations where he's chased, or been chased, for hours...sometimes across multiple sessions, and either side would rightly have been irked if the climax of the encounter was the other party deciding they've misjudged and logging off instead of escaping or being shot down via in-game means.



I'm extremely doubtful of this.

As a player whose CMDR rarely initiates hostilities and almost never carries an interdictor, almost all of the deliberate disconnecting, and most of the menu logging, I see are on the part of the aggressors.

Combat logging needs to be recognized for what it is...not an understandable action when confronted with apparent griefing, but as a prime griefing tool, habitually used to undermine the legitimate gameplay of others.
i wish there were more players like you o7
 
i wish there were more players like you o7

I always appreciate Morbad's view on things. Sometimes we don't agree, and other times I salute how he thinks about his answers.

In any event.. The only TRUE solution here, and it's the old chestnut of those great grinding wheels, going around and around.... is to split OPEN into PvP and PvE variants.

At no point in time will the two groups of players get along, not play along. Never until the end of time shall the two unify. The more FDEV tries to work around it or force it, ever stronger the resistance gets.
 
:) But if it's indeed implemented, it practically eradicates the notion that it's only "PvErs" or "Carebears" who just want to "avoid risk" doing it.

It's the perfect way to test that assertion. The only people who would be in Open PvP are those who engage in PvP, after all. If Open PvE is a thing- there wouldn't be any need whatsoever for a PvEr to be in Open PvP anymore. Based on that logic- there's only ONE conclusion, thus those who blame PvErs wouldn't have that as a crutch to rely on anymore, no?
Anyone who does it is avoiding risk.

I am against anyone doing it, PvE or PvP.

I don't understand why it has to become a tribal, us vs them, issue.

Mind you I also don't understand how so many people can see themselves as infallible so I guess I'll just stick to liquefying anyone who attempts to menu log...

I always appreciate Morbad's view on things. Sometimes we don't agree, and other times I salute how he thinks about his answers.

In any event.. The only TRUE solution here, and it's the old chestnut of those great grinding wheels, going around and around.... is to split OPEN into PvP and PvE variants.

At no point in time will the two groups of players get along, not play along. Never until the end of time shall the two unify. The more FDEV tries to work around it or force it, ever stronger the resistance gets.
maybe we should have a civil war, all of the PvE players vs the PvP players...

Only then will we decide who is right!

TO WAR!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
Anyone who does it is avoiding risk.

I am against anyone doing it, PvE or PvP.

I don't understand why it has to become a tribal, us vs them, issue.

Mind you I also don't understand how so many people can see themselves as infallible so I guess I'll just stick to liquefying anyone who attempts to menu log...


maybe we should have a civil war, all of the PvE players vs the PvP players...

Only then will we decide who is right!

TO WAR!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Lol

PvE would win. PvPers are only about 2.8% of the player base. :p
 
but my sources tell me PvE'rs are only about 2.8% of the player base

In either case, you're a bit late to that party. How do you think Hotel California began? ;)

HINT: It's not because everyone was satisfied that there were choices for everyone to play as they wished...
 
In either case, you're a bit late to that party. How do you think Hotel California began? ;)

HINT: It's not because everyone was satisfied that there were choices for everyone to play as they wished...
I'm out of the loop on most things in Elite because I only come here when I'm not busy IRL

what is hotel california?

Ah, Of course, the remaining 94.4% are forum warriors who don't even play the game.
lol

funnily enough I have actually come to understand that the entire forum is the vocal minority.

who else can be bothered to talk to the same people day in day out... we have to do that at work .
 
Start here. I recommend from the beginning... if your forum settings filter out anything, change it so it shows ALL of the threads, from start to now.
I have about 20 books to read this year on advanced linguistic concepts... basically I have enough made up by people to read

I really don't want to read all that lmao
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I have about 20 books to read this year on advanced linguistic concepts... basically I have enough made up by people to read

I really don't want to read all that lmao

In short, it's the argument of PvE/PvP in ED, with the mode system being the primary source of contention.

Basically, some weren't satisfied that others had a choice instead of everyone being lumped together in one FFA mode like EVE.

Like i said, you're a bit late to that particular party.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
In short, it's the argument of PvE/PvP in ED, with the mode system being the primary source of contention.

Basically, some weren't satisfied that others had a choice instead of everyone being lumped together in one FFA mode like EVE.

Like i said, you're a bit late to that particular party.
did they at least have a fun civil war?
 
did they at least have a fun civil war?

For some, I'm sure it has been "fun", but regardless it's way OT but only relevant to my speculation that the assertion that it's only PvE players who want to "avoid risk" in Open doing the "combat logging", because quite frankly I don't think it truly is.

It's a surefire way to know for sure though- because once you have only PvPers in PvP Open, there's only one direction to point the finger.

PvErs for the most part aren't interested in engaging other players. That's the difference between PvE and PvP.

Therefore, it's only logical that one engaged in combat with another player would be performing PvP, and not PvE.
 
For some, I'm sure it has been "fun", but regardless it's way OT but only relevant to my speculation that the assertion that it's only PvE players who want to "avoid risk" in Open doing the "combat logging", because quite frankly I don't think it truly is.

It's a surefire way to know for sure though- because once you have only PvPers in PvP Open, there's only one direction to point the finger.

PvErs for the most part aren't interested in engaging other players. That's the difference between PvE and PvP.

Therefore, it's only logical that one engaged in combat with another player would be performing PvP, and not PvE.
I just don't like clogging whether it's a PvE player or a PvP player tbh.

Elite's identity crisis is a massive issue and it needs to be fixed, but most dissenters are shunned out of the forum for daring to criticize the game, or trolled subtly until they get banned for flipping out.
 
I just don't like clogging whether it's a PvE player or a PvP player tbh.

Elite's identity crisis is a massive issue and it needs to be fixed, but most dissenters are shunned out of the forum for daring to criticize the game, or trolled subtly until they get banned for flipping out.

We agree more than you may realize... but on the issue of "dissent" my question for those who criticize is usually how far they're willing to go- because if they're willing to "burn down the game" for their belief, it's apparent to me they really do not actually like or love the game as they so claim to profess.

They may like the idea of what they want it to be, but not what it actually IS.

IMO this game doesn't need to be Store Citizen, No Man's Game, EVE Lite, or anything else that already exists. "Oh, so and so developer is doing this, why can't Frontier do it?" It should be it's own game based on its own merits, but the problem is some seem to want it to be something that already exists. That's my ONLY contention with critique. Did Frontier do everything "right"? Of course not, and I know not one developer who actually has yet.

Daily whinge critique threads do not in any way provide a productive way of addressing things that need be addressed. It's been going on for years- and what has it actually accomplished? IMO it's counterproductive.

It's the difference in telling a friend "Your breath stinks!" or simply offering them a breath mint. Both might seem to be "right" as an approach, but sometimes being overtly abrasive isn't going to give you the same results. As the adage goes... "You'll attract more flies with honey than vinegar."

Take that for what it's worth, I suppose. Subtlety and tact.
 
Last edited:
:) But if it's indeed implemented, it practically eradicates the notion that it's only "PvErs" or "Carebears" who just want to "avoid risk" doing it.

I'm not convinced this was ever an especially popular notion. Sure some portion of 'carebears' combat log, combat loggers cover the full spectrum of attitudes towards PvP, with the only universal constant being that they are willing to cheat, either to preserve their assets, and/or to annoy their opponents.

The only people who would be in Open PvP are those who engage in PvP, after all. If Open PvE is a thing- there wouldn't be any need whatsoever for a PvEr to be in Open PvP anymore. Based on that logic- there's only ONE conclusion, thus those who blame PvErs wouldn't have that as a crutch to rely on anymore, no?

I don't really agree with that logic at all.

Even if I was playing a pacifist CMDR who shunned combat entirely, I'd be selecting the hypothetical Open PvP mode, because any mode where a shot from a weapon, or a collision, caused different damage simply because the ship hit happens to be player controlled would be completely counter to the sort of plausible experience I'm after. It's the same rationale as why I always enable friendly fire in team based shooters, and as a DM for my AD&D game, would never consider any absolute prohibition on a PC attacking or damaging another PC...it just wouldn't make any sense.

As it is, despite enjoying PvP combat (mostly as a side effect of NPCs combat being rather dull) and having thousands of PvP encounters in my time, most of what I have my CMDR do in game would be considered PvE and no matter what I'm having my CMDR do, I always play in Open. I fly my shieldless hauler shuttle in Open. I explore and deliver exploration data in Open. I mine in Open. I train NPC crew against NPC enemies in Open. Even if I'm not looking for trouble, even if I'd find trouble with other CMDRs highly inconvenient at the moment, I'm still in Open because that's the purest form of the game to me.
 
We agree more than you may realize... but on the issue of "dissent" my question for those who criticize is usually how far they're willing to go- because if they're willing to "burn down the game" for their belief, it's apparent to me they really do not actually like or love the game as they so claim to profess.

They may like the idea of what they want it to be, but not what it actually IS.

IMO this game doesn't need to be Store Citizen, No Man's Game, EVE Lite, or anything else that already exists. "Oh, so and so developer is doing this, why can't Frontier do it?" It should be it's own game based on its own merits, but the problem is some seem to want it to be something that already exists. That's my ONLY contention with critique. Did Frontier do everything "right"? Of course not, and I know not one developer who actually has yet.

Daily whinge critique threads do not in any way provide a productive way of addressing things that need be addressed. It's been going on for years- and what has it actually accomplished? IMO it's counterproductive.

It's the difference in telling a friend "Your breath stinks!" or simply offering them a breath mint. Both might seem to be "right" as an approach, but sometimes being overtly abrasive isn't going to give you the same results. As the adage goes... "You'll attract more flies with honey than vinegar."

Take that for what it's worth, I suppose.
I agree for the most part.

I think it's important to look at other games because we're able to see what's capable, and valid strategies for dealing with largely the same issue.

Store Citizen is appropriate (I put enough money into that train wreck for concierge btw... rip.) but I think NMS has managed to turn itself around quite well. Although I don't like the recent changes where they changed the name of everything and flipped the crafting system on its head (I hate relearning the same system every update)

I think that criticism without a solution is just complaining. Many solutions are offered but they're just debunked with "well FD don't think it's a problem." (menu logging)

Most of the points of contention seem to stem from FD's bizarre design choices regarding an MMO that plays like a single player game without the interesting story...

I pretty much gave up on it after 2.3 got reverted, so my cynicism is very high.
 
I'm not convinced this was ever an especially popular notion. Sure some portion of 'carebears' combat log, combat loggers cover the full spectrum of attitudes towards PvP, with the only universal constant being that they are willing to cheat, either to preserve their assets, and/or to annoy their opponents.

I don't really agree with that logic at all.

Even if I was playing a pacifist CMDR who shunned combat entirely, I'd be selecting the hypothetical Open PvP mode, because any mode where a shot from a weapon, or a collision, caused different damage simply because the ship hit happens to be player controlled would be completely counter to the sort of plausible experience I'm after. It's the same rationale as why I always enable friendly fire in team based shooters, and as a DM for my AD&D game, would never consider any absolute prohibition on a PC attacking or damaging another PC...it just wouldn't make any sense.

As it is, despite enjoying PvP combat (mostly as a side effect of NPCs combat being rather dull) and having thousands of PvP encounters in my time, most of what I have my CMDR do in game would be considered PvE and no matter what I'm having my CMDR do, I always play in Open. I fly my shieldless hauler shuttle in Open. I explore and deliver exploration data in Open. I mine in Open. I train NPC crew against NPC enemies in Open. Even if I'm not looking for trouble, even if I'd find trouble with other CMDRs highly inconvenient at the moment, I'm still in Open because that's the purest form of the game to me.

So in essence, you disagree with the notion that combat logging is all about "carebears avoiding risk" in Open, then?
 
i wish there were more players like you o7

i think the game has room for all kinds of players, just not those willing to ignore the game's rules when it suits them.

In any event.. The only TRUE solution here, and it's the old chestnut of those great grinding wheels, going around and around.... is to split OPEN into PvP and PvE variants.

At no point in time will the two groups of players get along, not play along. Never until the end of time shall the two unify. The more FDEV tries to work around it or force it, ever stronger the resistance gets.

I understand the sentiment here, but if the game had solid, enforceable mechanisms for illustrating Frontier's own vision...these groups wouldn't need to agree or get along, because they'd have no other choice. The ones who couldn't abide with non-exploitable mechanisms and plausible C&P would either quit or be banned...and the game would be better off for it.

So in essence, you disagree with the notion that combat logging is all about "carebears avoiding risk" in Open, then?

Yes, that's one of the points I made.

Combat logging is used by all sorts of players to avoid risks, and sometimes just to tick people off.
 
Back
Top Bottom