All in solo or Mobius
Opinions on combat logging
- Thread starter mephisto9466
- Start date
I acknowledge the issues myself in the post. I'm a person that does tend to apply sledgehammer solutions. You could implement my draft and all banned folks could be innocent, but the probability of that? Low enough that I could sleep at night telling myself that people with such crappy internet shouldn't be playing online where that can affect others.
OF course the perfect world is an individual investigation into each incident, but I think that's even less feasible than blanketing people with criteria.
Sure there is. Remove the biggest benefit of Clogging - the ability to switch to solo & move position by requiring players to rejoin the mode they left if their ship was in danger. I see no downside to adding a rule like this beyond the time to implement it, and plenty of upsides.
Full ack. Then you can escape, but at the cost of your own lost time. Sounds fair.
1. I blame microsoft for everything, includeing IBS.
2. Console open interactions are scarce, and most PvP groups hate each other so it is a tough nut to crack...
3. Likely you are correct. Task killing on xbox just requires you to open the overlay and close the app. That and the general availability and ease of use for consoles over PC for the modern children and their hatred of anything requiring work or effort lol...
To be fair, I am speaking from my own experience and from the witnessed or related experience of the 'griefer' class of player. There are a couple player groups of notable size on xbox that I don't interact with, however I do interact with a good dozen or so. (They always change names and members so its hard to keep track)
Nearly everyone of those groups actively hunts anyone in Open and, if contacted by their victim, will be more than happy to help them with advice, wing up, and even work with them on engineering. It is largely a selfish act mind, the more interest in the game in general, and pvp in particular, the more players that are involved and the better the pews get.
A lot of us just want a fun firefight that runs all day long. The more that can participate the better it gets. (Most: the majority of the 100+ pvp players I interact with, the rest is just general blanket statements about how they run their player groups. No clue how it is on PS4, PC)
Would this allow them to implement the 15 second timer to task kills as well? Log in to find your ship was still persistent for the requisite 15 seconds and the ships state on log in would be whatever it was after the 15 seconds was up. How feasible would it be to have a server that tracks persistence only on disconnects and only for 15 seconds?
Genuine questions, I know little to nothing about networking.
This is again rather tricky if the CLing player owned the instance, I believe. It's not impossible, but it's something of a headache. I don't htink the benefit would justify the overhead when they could just put a support person onto these reports, as Julio suggested, but yeh, it's an option.
The solution here has to be:
Elegant
Minimal coding effort (and can be done without a persistent instance state server, because ED doesn't have one, or if it does, it's storing rudimentary parameters rather than entire savegame 'states')
As accurate at catching habitual CLers as possible and avoiding treating coincidental loggers as criminals
or they just won't bother. As FD, I have to weigh up the pros and cons of doing this, vs leaving it as it is now.
The fact that this thread has reached 116 pages is indicative that this is a major issue for the community, so if I were FD, I'd probably be looking at a few of these suggestions for the 'next major release'.
Player ship persistence isn't part of the suggestion you quoted. It's possible but there are major hurdles whichever way it would be implementable.
For player ship persistence to be possible it would need to be transferred with all the other assets to the peer hosting the instance. If you are hosting the instance, and another player joins, your PC effectively acts as a mini-server. If you quit the instance (jump away say, or leave the game) the hosting of the instance is seamlessly transferred to another player in that instance. Control of all the NPCs & other stuff (floating cargo etc) moves to the new host peer. There have been issues in the past with this transfer, disappearing cargo etc. Potentially, the exiting players ship could be hosted too, it becomes just another asset like a cargo canister.
But there are some pretty big obstacles to overcome. How is the fate of this ship communicated back to it's owner the next time they join the game? Did it move? Was it damaged? Is some more cargo missing?
There is also a trust issue - it's exploitable. How does the transaction server arbitrate if both players remain in-game but the connection between them is lost? Does each player see a copy of the other player's ship? How do we avoid duplicating assets or resolve timeline branches (eg each player destroys the other in their respective instances).
I don't think it's practical, but FDev are the deciders & it's their budget & time to consume.
That's why I like the idea you quoted - compared to other suggestions it's easy to implement & has no big downsides.
Last edited:
Yeah the proposal I wrote doesn't change instance hosting, if a player CLogs in solo against NPCs this rules doesn't have any effect on it's own. But it doesn't make things worse for the accidental disconnect either.
I agree with the rest of your post, although thread length isn't much of an indicator of anything more than how strongly some feel about the topic
You are factually incorrect. Your citation is the gci discord, a school designed by the PvP community to help anyone with a genuine interest in improving.
I can't think of a single pvper who wouldn't be happy to offer help and guidance to a fellow player, provided that player had a good attitude.
Just how big is the 'PvP' community? Are you using some narrower definition than Rampant?
That clarifies a few unknowns, thank you.
So, frontier would have to have a server to store data for persistence, which in turn would cause client server sync issues which then requires full server side game data storage, which leads us back to the issue of too much change...
If they can incorporate the idea for disconnect you quoted into having seperate open game modes for pve and pvp, and pushing the log out timer to 19 seconds (I believe this is the longest duration on FSD reset effects), then it sounds like middle ground to me. Compromise right?
I don't know about the 19sec timer limitation but yea, sure. The ship in danger timer increase can be mitigated by putting the confirmation at the start rather than having to wait until the end. That way the exiting player can just go AFK immediately if they don't care what happens to their assets while the timer counts down.
And they make up the bulk of PvP players do they? 'Cause I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest they don't.
Just seems fair that if I go through all the trouble of engineering an Grom rocket to have fsd reset of 19 seconds, the log off timer to avoid combat should equal the time you would have to wait to jump out right?
Honestly, I was being facetious. Don't care about the timer as most everyone on xbox just closes the game app. I think splitting the open modes would make for a lot less 'clogging' threads though. They would be replaced with 'Open PvE BGS should be nerfed' threads...
For xbox, the pvp community is usually very helpful and frequently the most knowledgable players around. The issue is, people don't think they are helpful because most rarely talk to the person that just tried to murder them.
Next time you find someone trying to kill you, escape and message them. Ask what their loadout is and if they have tips on escaping said murder boat. You don't expect street hooligans to brain someone then ask how their day was. Kinda the same in Elite.
Anyone who thinks pvp players aren't helpful are free to try and start a dialogue. Hell, just find someone that does pvp and be like 'Yo, you tried to kill me once. Got any tips to avoid said murder in the future?'... just keep in mind you might be in for a marathon conversation.
Depends on who you ask and what community they are referring to.
There are people/groups that would alternately hold me up as an archetypal PvPer (with negative or positive connotations, depending on who is being asked) or deny that I was a 'real' PvPer all together, and many more who have no idea who I or my CMDR are.
Any individual anecdote about what "most" of any arbitrary grouping consists of is likely to be flawed...small subsets within small subsets.
With that said, I still can't think of any off the top of my head who would not be willing to be helpful if approached respectfully.
Griefer topics reach that kind of lifespan, too.
Is only confirmation bias.