I think this is a good example of the kind of humour that passes you by. What happened to you man? You used to be cool
Now you're getting into the spirit!
Opinions on combat logging
- Thread starter mephisto9466
- Start date
Now you're getting into the spirit!
He's still cool
Gentlemen, what I propose is a studied and rigorous discussion of the actual elements of clogging dissuasion that FD have already imposed and how they could be made more robust and selective.
They introduced a big stick with the "IP changed mid-session" disconnector, but the cloggers using that particular workaround were not affected in the slightest, and heaps of peeps on low-lease transients got hit big time and many left the game, not for anything they did, but for what was done to them for reasons completely beyond their control.
But that's hard
Can't we just, like joke around or something?
Seriously I have a massive thread about solving this problem already, I linked to it in a post a few pages ago.
Anyone is welcome to pick up that ball & run with it, the process flow is pretty complete. Asp, your proposed topic is within your skillset, but not mine
You fell for my elaborate ruse.
How many get away? Do you aim to entertain, or care only about your own fun?
But that's hard
Networking, in a real-time gaming environment involving potentially thousands of peers to review, tends to not be particularly easy
This stuff is hard, and FD have actually done an incredibly good job of it.
Sandro is reading this? In that case I restate my opinion, that combat logging doesn't matter except to a tiny minority, that I've never seen it in over 1000 hours' play, and if anyone combat logged away from me I'd experience a great feeling of triumph. Please don't mess the game up by unnecessary tinkering.
I don't care if people do either, but only 15s is legit.
People need to remember:
- it's just a game, don't take it so seriously
- the fun should be leading up to the digital pixels exploding, or not
- rebuys are so cheap / money is so easy, it's not like dying is a real inconvenience. So logging or not is meaningless
- disassociate fantasy from reality: just because some logs in game, doesn't make them a bad person in real life
- peer-to-peer places limits on what is feasible, get over it
I'd rather FDev focus on more important stuff, like mining, exploring and rescue gameplay enhancements.
People need to remember:
- it's just a game, don't take it so seriously
- the fun should be leading up to the digital pixels exploding, or not
- rebuys are so cheap / money is so easy, it's not like dying is a real inconvenience. So logging or not is meaningless
- disassociate fantasy from reality: just because some logs in game, doesn't make them a bad person in real life
- peer-to-peer places limits on what is feasible, get over it
I'd rather FDev focus on more important stuff, like mining, exploring and rescue gameplay enhancements.
Yeah.
Talk about spare honour.
And then insult with a mum comment.
Let's discuss how much credibility this combination of comments possesses... or how much honour...
In truth, Menu Exit has no link with what anybody else considers "honour". Simply because nobody has any authority here to insist that Menu Exit equates with a lack of honour. Player choice is king. Arrrrrr.
Yours Aye
Mark H
Yes.
In case you are not already aware - one can "gracefully abide" by a rule and also "strongly disagree" with the same rule, at the same time.
For instance, I am one of the less than 1% I regularly see on the roads who stay within any posted 30mph speed limits. I strongly disagree with some of these posted 30mph speed limits (while also agreeing that some of them are appropriately mandated) but still graciously abide by them - all of them whether I view them as appropriate or not.
Some of us are sanguine individuals. By extension of the ideas and ideals being posted in this thread and others, however, I get the distinct impression that it is those people who see the 15 sec timer as fitting that have a greater propensity to be sanguine individuals. ymmv
Cheerz
Mark H
Make it a 30 sec timer? Sure, then they'll just combat log. Call me cynical but I know people. And these are people who would right now say "I would never CL", but that's because they have the logout timer. If they didn't they'd soon change their tune and advocate CLing as a justifiable response to what they perceive to be 'griefing'.
FD cannot win this one. As long as the plug can be pulled, there is nothing that can be done. Ah, I hear you say, but what about keeping their ship persistent? That would be very difficult (but not impossible) if the CLer is the current owner of the instance, which no doubt would happen very often. Yay (yet again) for p2p netcode.
FD cannot win this one. As long as the plug can be pulled, there is nothing that can be done. Ah, I hear you say, but what about keeping their ship persistent? That would be very difficult (but not impossible) if the CLer is the current owner of the instance, which no doubt would happen very often. Yay (yet again) for p2p netcode.
It floors you? A bit strong, maybe - but if you don't get it yet - allow me to at least try to explain it to you.
Some players have zero interest in PvP combat.
Some other players might say in response that they should play in Solo. Ahem, not your place to insist on that. Period.
I sometimes go out for a *social* drink and sometimes, when I do, I find that there is some a-hat that wants to pick a fight with me. I decline the polite invitation for a scrap. Not interested. But I won't allow anyone to tell me that I shouldn't be going out for a *social drink*. No Sir. Not your business. Not your business to tell me that I cannot go to certain bars at certain times either. Not your business at all.
And so it is with this game. Those *social players*. They sometimes get invited to scrap. A scrap that they have *zero interest* in encouraging. To hit back, or even to play along and high-wake or whatever other method that *you* insist they must do, they are not at all interested in that. As far as the player is concerned, playing along could be seen as encouraging the very style of play that they have zero interest in. So the 100% legitimate and valid option of Menu Exit is the option that they elect to use.
Allow me also to remind everyone that "by clicking on Open, you accept that any player may choose to Menu Exit at any time of their choosing" (even during PvP combat).
Now we all intrinsically know that there are well established escape mechanisms within the Elite game. And despite some players knowing these exist, they might still choose to Menu Exit as the option of choice, and there is nothing - absolutely nothing - that any other player can complain about in this. It breaks "your" 4th wall. So what? *You* might be breaking that other player's 4th wall by interdicting them with a high-bounty, high notoriety kill boat in a "High Security" system? It breaks no rules in doing so, but for a player, this might be "unrealistic". The standard trope that is rolled out is that "by clicking on Open that player must accept unrealistic behaviour might happen". Likewise, it breaks no rules by using the Menu Exit. Not even the "spirit" of the rules as some players may try to define them... because, you know what? ... there may well be a counter-point from the other guy where he also views another act as breaking the "spirit" of the rules but which you don't agree upon.
That's the contradiction in foisting a "spirit of the rules" argument onto another player - their viewpoint may well be different. Let's just agree to abide by the *actual* rules instead and park the debate on "spirit" altogether.
In sum - some players not interested in playing as others insist they do. Instead they choose the 100% legitimate Menu Exit, that you must accept, by clicking Open, is a fair process.
May I suggest that if you find yourself becoming angsty by other players choosing the 100% valid option of Menu Exit - you may want to block them, or play Solo instead.
I'm only messing about the Solo option, of course, but it does serve to highlight the others that suggest it...
Yours Aye
Mark H
At least I will die with honour.
Likewise - I would prefer pre-agreed PvP to random no-comms kill encounters. That would be great. I would probably then never have to indulge in something which I have no interest in doing. And exactly why I have never and probably will never open CQC. (Never say Never, of course - it is a possibility that I might Open CQC sometime. But in all probability, probably not.)
I don't expect other players to play by my rules at all.
That would be to expect others who min-max their PvP meta-builds to also possess some honour. Sadly, from experience, those appear to be mutually exclusive concepts. (see above.)
Slainte Mhath
Mark H
I think you can legitimately blame Microsoft and Sony for that one, they do seem to like to keep their on-line gaming services separated from each other (in addition to the general PC/Mac/Linux gaming platforms).
As for PvP players having no-where else to go, they could always start a No-Holds-Barred PvP player group (or more groups if it is popular enough). Open allows PvP but there are notional limits to PvP behaviours.
There is perhaps another point that perhaps needs to be considered - is combat logging or menu exiting a bigger issue on certain platforms than it is on others. It would not surprise me if it were a greater concern on the consoles.
Honor and sportsmanship are just other words for lacking game mechanics. Proper rules and functions are missing, so we have to make our own.
Not everyone makes the same rules for them self, so we get disagreement on the forum.
That's more like it. I accept this to be true. There are, of course, PvP combat focussed players who will welcome would-be PvP combat players and help them out. I know this to be true.
But saying that "most" PvP combateers will do this is not an acceptable statement. Not in the slightest. A citation would be required to verify this "most" word, where there clearly is none.
There is a vast distinction between "some" and "most" and a very visible disconnect between what some PvP players see as "being friendly and helpful" and the reality, in my own experience, of how many are actually friendly and helpful in the game.
Cheerz
Mark H
This is my experience. I've had two encounters with players who were RP'ing pirates, and they were awesome. One got my cargo, and I forced the other to melt me. Both encounters were a hoot because they got into the spirit of the thing.
The bulk of the other encounters? Silent, would-be seal-clubbers. No comms either before or after. Not so much as a 'die, scum!' before they melted me or "hey, your build was very weak, want some tips?" afterwards.
While there may well be a PVP community that's friendly and helpful, the bulk of PvP players are not. In my experience, natch.
The whole thing is just prone to waste people's time. On both ends. The ones looking for coop activity as well as those looking for PvP combat.
They could better enforce the rules against doing so.
The act cannot be made impossible and keeping a ship in an instance after a client disconnects is not practical, but keeping an eye out for such patterns and making examples of people who engage in prohibited behavior would remove some of the most flagrant violators from the game, and deter many more.
You can do that in a true PvP game but not in a broken hybrid like this.
I do agree. It is my personal opinion, that if reported with included evidence of 'disappearance' prior to an obvious death, either by log, a series of screenshots, or video, that these should be actioned on a 'strikes' basis over a period of time regardless what justification the user tries to provide (short of a letter from their ISP confirming an outage of course).
The reason it needs to be strikes is because one incident is not actionable, due to lack of proof of whether a plug was pulled or a genuine unscheduled connection outage occurred. It also needs to happen during a set period as three combat disconnects in a year is not an issue, but in a week or even a month it could be.
If I were in charge of implementing this, my first draft would be something like this.
If you see someone combat log, gather all the evidence you can in the form of log files, screenshots or video where possible. We will also try to determine from instance logs, the likelihood of this being a deliberate disconnection. When a user is reported for this, they get a 'strike'. 3 strikes in a 30 day period results in a ban from Open Play for a duration of 1 week. Repeat incidents increase the duration of the ban.
Having said all that, it depends on Fd's willingness to call people liars and face the potential consequences of doing that, as well as the edge cases that are persistent but not deliberate connections due to crappy internet, and potentially banning an innocent person (and in this case, I say, well, there's an argument that if your internet is THAT bad, you shouldn't really play online games that rely on stable connections, but again, that's a tough one to enforce and stay on the side of morality).
Last edited:
The moment you apply a pattern detection,
you give players a hidden mechanic to look into and play with.
It is akin to the points you can gather violating the laws applying
to driving a car in a certain way and depth.
I am inclined to wish for humans checking out these incidents, not pattern
analysis tools, which can be fooled, by testing out the waters and spreading the news.
In short:
This game is a MMO, where are the GMs?!