Opinions on combat logging

[Rampant]

I don't agree with combat logging in open because you consent to PvP the moment you click Open Play.

If you don't want any risk of PvP, play in Solo or join Mobius.

Personally, I think Frontier should have made a separate PvE server, and in that, you can choose to engage in PvP only if both of you consent to it, kind of like Borderlands where you can challenge a squad member to a fight and they can either accept or decline.

Here's another trope for you:

The moment you click on Open, you consent to other players leaving the instance via the menu log out timer.

It really is such a simple concept that I can't figure out why there is such a heavy discussion about it.
You click on Open...
You accept that players can menu log.
And they will.
And that, my friends is entirely by design.
Happy?

Mark H

 

[Sylveria]

Here's another trope for you:

The moment you click on Open, you consent to other players leaving the instance via the menu log out timer.

It really is such a simple concept that I can't figure out why there is such a heavy discussion about it.
You click on Open...
You accept that players can menu log.
And they will.
And that, my friends is entirely by design.
Happy?

Mark H

You'l find a lot of those who complain as long as the "no rules" notion only applies to their own beliefs, unilaterally...

They simply can't grasp that it's actually bilateral.

"Oh, but someone absolutely has to bow down to my virtual physical superiority!!!"

 

[jasonbarron]

If Fdev ever does something about the situation, such as dramatically increase the menu timer, or disable the ability to gracefully exit the program when taking damage for instance, is everyone who is currently championing menu logging as being fair going to gracefully abide here on the forum? Sandro has brought it up before, so that's not exactly an impossible scenario someday in the future.

 

[Mohrgan]

If Fdev ever does something about the situation, such as dramatically increase the menu timer, or disable the ability to gracefully exit the program when taking damage for instance, is everyone who is currently championing menu logging as being fair going to gracefully abide here on the forum?

Sure, why wouldn't they? Just remember, there is no griefing in E|D, not even the menu log. There is no way anyone can suggest that logging is a PvE player problem alone. Logging has a firm connection to PvP players out there. Everyone should follow the rules. And, that means all of them.

 

[Rampant]

Yep... Tell me that in 4 years time.

Just wanted to set my calendar - so replying to this post so I can search for it more easily in 4 year's time.

When I'll still be happily playing Elite Dangerous. Some people appear to be so negative about the game it really does confuse me why they continue to play it even now - never mind in 4 year's time. Why not just uninstall it if it creates so much angst for you? <shrugs>

 

[jasonbarron]

Sure, why wouldn't they? Just remember, there is no griefing in E|D, not even the menu log. There is no way anyone can suggest that logging is a PvE player problem alone. Logging has a firm connection to PvP players out there. Everyone should follow the rules. And, that means all of them.

I hope you're correct, but I can think of quite a few reasons you might not be, haha. Hard to say if we'll ever see a change, but I think if Fdev really desires a fair situation they'll have to address the timer at some point. Personally, I'd like to see 30-45 seconds with the yes/no option right at the beginning. Having to wait until the timer counts all the way down seems like cruel and unusual punishment for the people who really and truly need to exit the program for legit non gamey reasons.

 

[[VR] Mad Mike]

If Fdev ever does something about the situation, such as dramatically increase the menu timer, or disable the ability to gracefully exit the program when taking damage for instance, is everyone who is currently championing menu logging as being fair going to gracefully abide here on the forum? Sandro has brought it up before, so that's not exactly an impossible scenario someday in the future.

Everyone should know the rules when signing into elite d. Hell it is not like FD have not given us options. I would *hope* people would adhere to the rules but as with all online games whenever it is possible to cheat, some WILL cheat, we have seen it before and still seeing it now with people botting, the combat logging as well as years of a small few exploiting every broken mechanism in the game they possibly could to harvest salt out of players..

sad but true. I wish players could play in the "spirit" of the rules in all things in all games but they cant.

I would have some sympathy if there was no was to dodge player interaction but there is.#

TLDR cheaters in ED will not be stopped whilst it is possible to cheat in elite.


I do think however that IF FD ever increase the log out timer they remove the need to ok it at the end of the countdown... the countdown should start and just have a cancel button, if this is not pressed the game auto discconects on its own. Real life has to take priority over a game, but, the penalties for destruction when it is completely no fault of our own can be mindbogglingly high

 

[Mohrgan]

I hope you're correct, but I can think of quite a few reasons you might not be, haha. Hard to say if we'll ever see a change, but I think if Fdev really desires a fair situation they'll have to address the timer at some point. Personally, I'd like to see 30-45 seconds with the yes/no option right at the beginning. Having to wait until the timer counts all the way down seems like cruel and unusual punishment for the people who really and truly need to exit the program for legit non gamey reasons.

I, certainly, could live with that. I am not at all in favor of the calls for a timer reset on damage. That negates the timed exit completely. Remember, that explosion is a privilege, not a right.

 

[jasonbarron]

I, certainly, could live with that. I am not at all in favor of the calls for a timer reset on damage. That negates the timed exit completely. Remember, that explosion is a privilege, not a right.

That was legitimately funny.

 

[Bob Lighthouse]

What is, and what should be, are often not the same.

 

[Daniel Cloudsifter]

I hope you're correct, but I can think of quite a few reasons you might not be, haha. Hard to say if we'll ever see a change, but I think if Fdev really desires a fair situation they'll have to address the timer at some point. Personally, I'd like to see 30-45 seconds with the yes/no option right at the beginning. Having to wait until the timer counts all the way down seems like cruel and unusual punishment for the people who really and truly need to exit the program for legit non gamey reasons.

I personally would prefer it remains 15 seconds, but would gladly take the 30-45 second window in order to click yes/no right away and be able to exit the game (while my ship is still vulnerable). Most of my menu logs - and there haven't been many - were versus NPCs that kept interdicting me when I really, really needed to use the bathroom. That 15 second wait to click "Yes" can be very... painful... [where is it] in certain situations.

+1 Rep

 

[Riverside]

What is, and what should be, are often not the same.

This is usually Asp Explorers point in these threads. The connection between peers is by no means of guaranteed quality or stability.

 

[Bob Lighthouse]

This is usually Asp Explorers point in these threads. The connection between peers is by no means of guaranteed quality or stability.

That's a red herring.
Why?
Because that's a given that extends well beyond Elite.

A truth about the entire internet isn't noteworthy.

 

[Riverside]

That's a red herring.
Why?
Because that's a given that extends well beyond Elite.

A truth about the entire internet isn't noteworthy.

From previous conversations I think you probably have a good idea about how packets are sent & arrive, but the important difference with ED is that (for example) you are hosting a session and I am communicating directly with you (ie computer to computer). This provides the best case scenario for latency (effectively the physical distance the data has to travel) but compromises on the quality of the connection. If I have a potato we both suffer; if we each connect to a server your connection is fine to everything else but me, my connection to everything (in-game) is bad. I may even think my connection is fine because I can load this forum no problem, because latency & packet loss aren't a big deal to a website.

As you suggest, theory & reality are not the same.

 

[Bob Lighthouse]

From previous conversations I think you probably have a good idea about how packets are sent & arrive, but the important difference with ED is that (for example) you are hosting a session and I am communicating directly with you (ie computer to computer). This provides the best case scenario for latency (effectively the physical distance the data has to travel) but compromises on the quality of the connection. If I have a potato we both suffer; if we each connect to a server your connection is fine to everything else but me. I may even think my connection is fine because I can load this forum no problem, because latency & packet loss aren't a big deal to a website.

As you suggest, theory & reality are not the same.

I don't see the conflict, because it's an understood limitation.
He uses it in some disjointed fashion about open/PVP that doesn't make any sense.

I said "should be" since that was brought up earlier.

 

[Riverside]

I don't see the conflict, because it's an understood limitation.
He uses it in some disjointed fashion about open/PVP that doesn't make any sense.

I said "should be" since that was brought up earlier.

Yeah, I think plenty understand it's a 'known limitation'. Not everyone though. Sometimes stuff just happens & it sucks. Doing it on purpose is bad, differentiating between the two isn't so easy.

I like Asp Explorer, I don't understand everything he says but he makes an excellent devil's advocate to help make a proposal more robust. He helped a lot on my Clogging punishment proposal thread.

 

[Bob Lighthouse]

Yeah, I think plenty understand it's a 'known limitation'. Not everyone though. Sometimes stuff just happens & it sucks. Doing it on purpose is bad, differentiating between the two isn't so easy.

I like Asp Explorer, I don't understand everything he says but he makes an excellent devil's advocate to help make a proposal more robust. He helped a lot on my Clogging punishment proposal thread.

I think it's an unproductive angle.
It's not something we can change, or is likely to be changed by anyone else.

It ends up being similar to:
"Since you're going to die anyhow, I don't see why we should be concerned with your health."

 

[Riverside]

I think it's an unproductive angle.
It's not something we can change, or is likely to be changed by anyone else.

It ends up being similar to:
"Since you're going to die anyhow, I don't see why we should be concerned with your health."

Agreed, more people should understand this. It is the reason why any solution won't be simple though, as Asp Explorer so regularly implies.

 

[Bob Lighthouse]

Agreed, more people should understand this. It is the reason why any solution won't be simple though, as Asp Explorer so regularly implies.

Again, we don't need a solution because that is simply unrealistic.
Incremental, positive changes are the best we can hope for due to those limitations, therefore trying to handwave such measures because they aren't solutions, is not logical.

That is the problem I have with Asp's position on that.
It's not a valid counter argument to any of the proposed measures, because it sets an unrealistic bar.
It's noise.

 

[jasonbarron]

Agreed, more people should understand this. It is the reason why any solution won't be simple though, as Asp Explorer so regularly implies.

That's not an accurate way of characterizing what Asp is so often implying.