Combat logging no longer an exploit? * trigger warning *

[SpeakerToAliens]

F-Dev used to treat legitimately leaving the game and Combat Logging differently, even if that difference is no longer mentioned in the rules/EULA.

I have argued for years that the 15 second timer for legitimate exits should be increased to 2 minutes if you're in danger AND that if you combat log (disconnect your internet) then, instead of simply vanishing, your ship should fly straight and level for that 2 minutes and take whatever battering it gets and if that's enough to destroy it then welcome to the rebuy screen when you log in again.

However, as nothing had changed over the years, I once suggested CL would be a valid tactic against "a certain group of annoying players" as it ruins their fun and really annoys them, but that suggestion earned me a 7 day forum ban for suggesting commanders should CL.

That won't happen now though, as there's no rule against CL in the documentation any more.

 

[Maggie_Oz]

I once suggested CL would be a valid tactic against "a certain group of annoying players" as it ruins their fun and really annoys them

And there it is.
Ruining someone's day by destroying them is fine, avoiding that by logging off, akin to walking away, is not.

 

[Deleted member 110222]

Surely, this is a poor example to use in asserting that. Wisdom comes in many forms. Seeing, recognizing, and acting on data provided is wisdom in action. Kek, is/was right.

k

 

[Sir Ganksalot]

Ouch...

What do you mean ouch? You still have zero room to speak considering you completely misread what I said. Get outta here with that crap.

 

[Sir Ganksalot]

Right, let's review:

And then, the exact opposite of what you stated above:

"I didn't even mention who was a ganker in all of that, except when I did exactly that". You tripped over your own feet trying to do a victory dance and you didn't even win.

Let's review dude. I never said who the receiver of the doxing was.
Morgan ignorantly replied "gankers good, loggers bad" when in fact it was the loggers that were also the gankers in this situation as well. Tell me again how I'm wrong other than apparently I did mention the doxers were gankers as well, which Morgan conveniently missed somehow.

 

[Dillon Fallon]

I am aware of BGS issues, as I have said previously the only that times I have encountered this behaviour was when I was doing a community goal.

To further clarify, I'm not really talking specifics or requiring a list of things I should be doing. My focus is on the fact that a lot of the attitude towards the ganker/greifer issue seems to be based more on blaming the victim rather than pursuing the perpetrator. This is even at the developer level, although it isn't official there has been mention of combat logging being an exploit, but there has been no mention anywhere of griefing being bullying.

You wouldn't see a ganker blowing up another player once and moving on to someone else as something getting any sanction though. Proving intent is always going to be tricky really. In the case of the ones that came after you, would it have improved the situation if they had given some RP saying they were opposing the CG for whatever reason?

I can't speak for players who do blow up other players for no reason, but what I would constitute an as a good reason as an anarchy supporting player would very doubtfully be one you might agree with.

One has to assume that the ability to blow up other players is something that the devs want intrinsically as part of the game. Should they do more to prevent it in high security systems- well there's a different issue. There seems to be plenty of suggestions that combat logging will come with some form of sanction based on what has been mentioned. That would be enough for me to not try it, if I was that way inclined. Given the prevalence of gankers, we have to assume Frontier are ok with it.

For my part, I'll make sure my ship is as difficult to blow up as possible. Ganking won't be fun if your targets always high wake. New players also need to be advised to stop reading those stupid guides that funnel them all into Deciat in open.

 

[Maggie_Oz]

You wouldn't see a ganker blowing up another player once and moving on to someone else as something getting any sanction though. Proving intent is always going to be tricky really.

The contents of this thread says different.
It's very easy to prove when you ask them and they admit it without any shadow of remorse.

 

[Just Paul]

To further clarify, I'm not really talking specifics or requiring a list of things I should be doing. My focus is on the fact that a lot of the attitude towards the ganker/greifer issue seems to be based more on blaming the victim rather than pursuing the perpetrator. This is even at the developer level, although it isn't official there has been mention of combat logging being an exploit, but there has been no mention anywhere of griefing being bullying.

Then you click on open you agree that you can be shot at by another CMDR at any time for any reason. There is really no victim or perpetrator so long both follow the rules established by FDev. Getting your starter Sidie shoot down by a g5 murderhobo killing machine is usually not seen as being against the rules. It is also usually not against the rules to blockade a system and shoot any and all CMDRs entering the system. I think there was a snippet of a dev post earlier in this threat about what FDev sees as harassment, in-game mainly comms abuse and following another player around with the goal to disrupt their game play. I know for a fact that they hand out bans for that. I found this dev post that gives some more examples, it's old but to my knowledge still enforced: https://forums.frontier.co.uk/threads/support-update-reiteration-of-player-harassment-rules.237761/.

 

[Maggie_Oz]

Then you click on open you agree that you can be shot at by another CMDR at any time for any reason

Agreed, it's doing it without reason that is my concern

following another player around with the goal to disrupt their game play

Which is exactly what I am talking about.

 

[Just Paul]

Which is exactly what I am talking about.

They do hand out bans if you follow somebody and repeatedly shot them down or interfere with whatever they are doing, but it has to be repeatedly. Seal clubbing in Deciat does usually not apply. But if for example somebody is stubborn and just goes right back to Deciat after each explosion and is subsequently shot down by the same CMDR lets say 10 times. If that person reports the other party, the other party will most likely get at least a temp ban.

 

[Maggie_Oz]

but it has to be repeatedly

That is interesting.

I'd have thought shooting multiple commanders once would be the same as one commander multiple times.

I guess it's a fine line, but both are clearly the same sort of behaviour

 

[Just Paul]

That is interesting.

I'd have thought shooting multiple commanders once would be the same as one commander multiple times.

I guess it's a fine line, but both are clearly the same sort of behaviour

I don't see it as the same behavior. For me there is a difference to shoot down 10 random people or single out 1 and shoot that one 10 times in a row. I think for the one singled out it would be a difference too. Blockading a system, as silly as it is, is still valid game play and can be quite fun for both sides. At least I had fun doing the blockade or trying to break it. Trade CGs were great for that type of gameplay.

 

[Dillon Fallon]

The contents of this thread says different.
It's very easy to prove when you ask them and they admit it without any shadow of remorse.

I meant the why of it. I could blow someone up for the sake of it, or because they Federation aligned. Certainly you wouldn't know why at the time you were attacked. After you've been sent to rebuy, the point is probably moot.

 

[Maggie_Oz]

After you've been sent to rebuy, the point is probably moot.

The point is probably moot once you sever the connection too.

 

[Dillon Fallon]

The point is probably moot once you sever the connection too.

If that's something you want to advocate.

 

[Maggie_Oz]

If that's something you want to advocate.

Not especially but the other side of the coin is advocated often enough.

 

[hems303]

My god Cmdr, you sound like a Goid lover, what what?

Are you in with the enemy, hmmmmm?

We will have none of that that deafest talk around herre, what? No Sir, we will not!

Now be a good Cmdr and jump onboard for the big push, what what.

We will show those Goids what real Cmdrs are made of, what what!

Toodly pipsky

... that's 'defeatist'...what, what old chap! (that is unless you are discoursing on the hard of hearing) tally'ho, over and out, wilco, ta ta for now, etc. etc. o7

 

[Morbad]

My focus is on the fact that a lot of the attitude towards the ganker/greifer issue seems to be based more on blaming the victim rather than pursuing the perpetrator.

The only perpetrator in most cases of combat logging is the one doing the combat logging, and they victimize every single player who plays a clean game and has even the vaguest vested interest in maintaining the continuity of the persistent elements of the setting.

being difficult to prove doesn't mean the bahaviour should be accepted.

If you think it can be reasonably asserted that an encounter features out-of-character harassment, report it.

Harassment is against the rules, but not cause to break the rules.

You are doing it for parts, not jollies. It's completely different

My CMDR doing it for jollies wouldn't be any different. The point is that it's my in-game character doing it to another in-game character. There is no rule that we must play good or likeable characters. A CMDR destroying other CMDRs for fun is entirely within the realm of acceptable behavior.

Ruining someone's day by destroying them is fine, avoiding that by logging off, akin to walking away, is not.

The former is something the character does quite possibly with in-game context, the latter is the something the player does with no in-game context to defeat in-game consequence.

Presuming every in-game action by an in-game character is a personal attack on the player is unfounded and untenable. It's equally unwarranted to make assumptions about how an action against an in-game character will feel to the player of that character, or to suggest that such assumption should influence how one plays one's character. I have to operate under the assumption that we can all tell the difference between our games and reality, our characters and ourselves, because the game wouldn't be possible otherwise. It's far easier to avoid taking offense than to avoid giving it.

 

[[VR] DDM_Reaper20]

This is the rotten core. "Just put up with it he's having fun"

It's certainly preferable to gnawing your own liver over something as mundane and trivial as a video game, which ED is, after all.

Having experienced extensive bullying during my high school time (the real deal -- constant, unmerited aggressiveness, which my brother and I could only stop by going toe to toe with those, ah, dudes), I can only say nothing triggers me so easily these days -- certainly not things that simply cannot have any impact on my quality of life. I also tend to extend a certain amount of goodwill towards other players. This is beneficial for me, as well. Why should I constantly worry about another player's motivation? It's a game.

 

[Maggie_Oz]

It's certainly preferable to gnawing your own liver over something as mundane and trivial as a video game, which ED is, after all.

Having experienced extensive bullying during my high school time (the real deal -- constant, unmerited aggressiveness, which my brother and I could only stop by going toe to toe with those, ah, dudes), I can only say nothing triggers me so easily these days -- certainly not things that simply cannot have any impact on my quality of life. I also tend to extend a certain amount of goodwill towards other players. This is beneficial for me, as well. Why should I constantly worry about another player's motivation? It's a game.

I agree entirely, the fact remains though that it is alleged you can have your licence for the game revoked simply for disconnecting.

So there clearly some liver gnawing going on over that one.