A Simple Solution to Combat Logging

You'll never catch me, ramming a commander "just for giggles". This would be immature, to stay polite. But complaining about being rammed near a pad/outpost. You have nothing to fear about, unless you're not obeying to the number 1 rule: Speedlimit is BELOW 100m/s. If you're too fast, then it's your fault.🤷‍♀️
I'll land at whatever speed in the video game I feel like thanks, usually I go in on boost and use the control tower as a "brake". As long as you have tanky shields everything's good. Not getting reckless flying fines means you are just not trying hard enough.

I've never actually lost a ship to the station greifers even pre-speed limit, probably down to my zero tolerance policy of just blocking them all on sight. Got very bored of them in 2015 when they all hung around the Lave cluster.

The games better without them in it.
 
I'll land at whatever speed in the video game I feel like thanks, usually I go in on boost and use the control tower as a "brake". As long as you have tanky shields everything's good. Not getting reckless flying fines means you are just not trying hard enough.

I've never actually lost a ship to the station greifers even pre-speed limit, probably down to my zero tolerance policy of just blocking them all on sight. Got very bored of them in 2015 when they all hung around the Lave cluster.

The games better without them in it.
3lytz0.jpg
 
People are here debating it; ergo debatable.
Wonderful example of the kind of silliness that ruins these discussions -
“The Earth is round, this is not debatable.”
“I’m debating with you, saying it’s flat. Ergo debatable.”

It’s widely accepted one someone says “not debatable” it’s taken as meaning that the topic is either a priori true, obviously true or true by empirical consensus. The fact some contrarian can technically argue that black is white is often ignored, for good reason.
 
Wonderful example of the kind of silliness that ruins these discussions -
“The Earth is round, this is not debatable.”
“I’m debating with you, saying it’s flat. Ergo debatable.”

It’s widely accepted one someone says “not debatable” it’s taken as meaning that the topic is either a priori true, obviously true or true by empirical consensus. The fact some contrarian can technically argue that black is white is often ignored, for good reason.
?
 
I'd support an "AI-controlled doppleganger fights on" solution (though I also agree that FDev have more important things to work on than this: I'm with the "call it a win and move on" sentiment).

Of course, once reality has bifurcated like this and the instance has broken, contradictory outcomes are possible. Both participants might beat both dopplegangers, or both might be defeated by them.

It also gets rather complicated in multiship battles. In a battle involving 12 ships, what if A combat-logs, and B and C lose contact with all the others but remain in contact with each other? A is up against 11 AI-controlled ships, but for the others it becomes a bit of a headache to work out which computer should be the "driver" of each doppleganger in the still-shared instances.
Reality bifurcating? Trousers of time? :D
 
Further reinforcing my view that you’re aim here is to reduce the discussion to unpleasant pettiness. It really isn’t debatable that people combat log in order to avoid the cost of the alternative. However, I realise any effort to continually present you with this utterly obvious fact will lead to about 400 exchanges arguing about technicalities, insistence a tautology needs further empirical evidence and hostile remarks. This is exactly why this forum is notorious for being toxic.
giphy5.gif
 
And here we have it. The forum toxic avenger in a nutshell. Another keyboard warrior who types at someone with the kind of language they would not dare use in person. It’s not big, clever or impressive to use nasty language. You should apologise.
No, I shouldn't apologise. In fact, given that I was responding to this: "Genuinely too long and waffley for me to read."; I reckon my response was entirely appropriate in both content and tone. I certainly would, and have, spoken to people with that kind of language when they are completely dismissive of anything that challenges an unsubstantiated claim they cling to. So, how about a recap - if you can muster the attention span.

Look, the reason people c-log is because rebuy costs are so high. As long as it costs millions to replace a ship, it will continue.
Which you followed up by referring to this as an utterly obvious fact and undebatable, and this gem: It’s widely accepted one someone says “not debatable” it’s taken as meaning that the topic is either a priori true, obviously true or true by empirical consensus.

The fact is, you're wrong. No matter how many times you repeat it, your assertion is not a fact, an obvious fact, undebatable, an a priori truth, or supported by empirical consensus. Consider the following:

Some Cmdrs (explorers) might clog so they do not lose weeks/months of data - the first discovered tags, the record of their journey, the 100s of millions of credits, NOT because of the comparatively pitiful rebuy cost.
Some Cmdrs (miners) might clog so they do not lose 100s of millions of credits in cargo, NOT because of the comparatively pitiful rebuy cost.
Some Cmdrs (BGS) might clog so they do not lose days of work - a transaction tab full of completed ++++/+++++ missions, NOT because of the comparatively pitiful rebuy cost.
Some Cmdrs (PP) might clog so the do not lose a weeks worth of undermining bonds right before the tick, NOT because of the comparatively pitiful rebuy cost.
Some Cmdrs (PvE?) might clog cause they are simply fed up with being interdicted by wings of gankers just for lulz, NOT because of the comparatively pitiful rebuy cost.
Some Cmdrs might clog just to mine salt from ganksters, NOT because of the comparatively pitiful rebuy cost.
Some Cmdrs might clog to avoid the rebuy cost.

The fact is there are many reason Cmdrs might clog, not one single reason. Given the current state of credit acquisition, avoiding the rebuy is most likely the last reason anyone but a poor new player would cite for clogging.

I will give you credit for providing the most ironic post in this thread - your use of round/flat earth was spectacular... because in this discussion, you're the flat-earther.

Edit: oops, posted before finished while typing.
 
Last edited:
if you can muster the attention span.
We all know he won't read it.... It's more than 3 lines....


And just to get my reply to doongus before his reply to me or thee....



?




(Why isn't this thread locked up yet? Yes, I've reported my own post as I believe this thread is devolving into pointless bickering and sly insult slinging, and deserves to be shut down.)
 
Last edited:
Ramming is an absolute legit move within PvP. Your ship is a weapon. If ones is out of ammo or has the opportunity to safe ammo, one should always try to ram the opponent.

If you consider it as "causing grief", then you should consider to learn how to evade a ramming-attempt.
In my post I specifically stated this was in an Open PvE (only) mode: "Open PvE Mode (shooting disabled, ramming enabled as a mechanic, but ToS is no killing other cmdrs)". In that context - ie PvE only and no killing players as it's against Terms of Service - yes it would be griefing.

The example was not in the context of regular PvP combat. I do get the feeling people don't read posts before hitting the outrage-button :rolleyes:
 
In my post I specifically stated this was in an Open PvE (only) mode: "Open PvE Mode (shooting disabled, ramming enabled as a mechanic, but ToS is no killing other cmdrs)". In that context - ie PvE only and no killing players as it's against Terms of Service - yes it would be griefing.

The example was not in the context of regular PvP combat. I do get the feeling people don't read posts before hitting the outrage-button :rolleyes:
I'm not in "rage mode". Not the slightest. You don't want me to get enraged. Trust me in this regard.
But "Open PvE-Mode" did I miss something in the last 2k+ hours ingame? Never saw that option (and hopefully never will).
But you stated 2 times within that post that ramming is a tactic of griefers snd should be punished. I give a fish about modes.
For me only one mode exist: Open.
Despite of this all...how would a PvE only mode solve the clogging problem? Unless you want to ban PvP per se in this game.
 

Simplystyc

Banned
Or if FDev would finally punish exploit abuse properly with permabans on repeated evidence. The clogging itself is only half of the issue. The other half is FDev's weak punishment against players breaking the gamerules, which is tightly connected to cheaters in Elite that currently roam the verse with increasing numbers.
1st confirmed log - 24 hour ban to solo
2nd confirmed log - 30 day ban to solo
3rd confirmed log - Permaban to solo.
 
The majority of posts on these forums demand the insurance to be nerfed, saying that 95% coverage is too much.
Only those that engage in the various money exploits could possibly think that. Leave the insurance level alone!

There is a broad spectrum of death penalty concerns, one of which is being addressed in the forthcoming patch (SLF pilot loss) but the rest are still valid concerns (Passengers Ejecting, Mission Cargo/Data Loss, Trading Cargo Loss, Mining Cargo Loss, Exploration Data Loss, Bounty Data Loss, etc). Whether we are talking rebuy or any of these elements the end result is essentially the same - lost/wasted time in game.
 
You'll never catch me, ramming a commander "just for giggles". This would be immature, to stay polite. But complaining about being rammed near a pad/outpost. You have nothing to fear about, unless you're not obeying to the number 1 rule: Speedlimit is BELOW 100m/s. If you're too fast, then it's your fault.🤷‍♀️
But what if he deserved it?
 
Ask FDEV.

Normal disconnects would give an error code (Purple Python, Orange Sidewinder etc) Taskkill does not. I am sure they could tell from their end.
Where is the error code if I get a power outage (and not using a laptop/UPS)? Sorry, but not ALL cases of incidental disconnects are detectable - A deliberate task kill can be detectable under some environments but that is not the only way of forcing a disconnect, nor is it necessarily indicative of an intentional combat log incident.
 
Last edited:
Consider the following:
Some Cmdrs (explorers) might clog so they do not lose weeks/months of data - the first discovered tags, the record of their journey, the 100s of millions of credits, NOT because of the comparatively pitiful rebuy cost.
Some Cmdrs (miners) might clog so they do not lose 100s of millions of credits in cargo, NOT because of the comparatively pitiful rebuy cost.
Some Cmdrs (BGS) might clog so they do not lose days of work - a transaction tab full of completed ++++/+++++ missions, NOT because of the comparatively pitiful rebuy cost.
Some Cmdrs (PP) might clog so the do not lose a weeks worth of undermining bonds right before the tick, NOT because of the comparatively pitiful rebuy cost.
Some Cmdrs (PvE?) might clog cause they are simply fed up with being interdicted by wings of gankers just for lulz, NOT because of the comparatively pitiful rebuy cost.
Some Cmdrs might clog just to mine salt from ganksters, NOT because of the comparatively pitiful rebuy cost.
Some Cmdrs might clog to avoid the rebuy cost.

The fact is there are many reason Cmdrs might clog, not one single reason. Given the current state of credit acquisition, avoiding the rebuy is most likely the last reason anyone but a poor new player would cite for clogging.
You make a lot of good points there, however, a good solution would be to disable the need for there to be a logout timer for unwilling combat participants. For players who are actively engaged in a battle, there should be no timer option and no disconnect option if they are losing. For players who are being ganked and have not deployed their weapons in response, they should be able to log out cleanly. I know some might be like "Oh but you have 15 seconds!" That is enough time for a full engineered combat ship with a high end PvP build two to smoke a non combat ship before the timer is half up.

Only then will combat logging be a punishable offense.

-k
 
How do you certify a clog as one?
I think that punishments shouldn't be as strict, and there should be a points system. Say, every player gets 10 points a month. Whenever they lose their connection during a PvP engagement, they lose one point regardless of whether it was deliberate or not. Once you run out of points, you get banned to solo for a week. This system would be more or less fair - everyone can clog from time to time and this covers people with unstable internet connections as well.

I can't imagine an active PvPer losing their connection during combat more than ten times in a single month - if there is such a person, I would recommend switching your internet provider.
 
Top Bottom