An idea that could fix logging?

[Mohrgan]

menu logging is cheating, why else would people use it to wait for it! Cheat death. anyway I got a good response from frontier on this one.

http://imgur.com/a/4JDXA
Images seem broken... http://imgur.com/a/4JDXA




Oh sure frontier could just ban PVP and cater to players who would prefer to cheat death even when stated by the dev to be not allowed. any form of logging is considered to be cheating as seen here, http://imgur.com/a/4JDXA

That tid-bit from Bret reads as a distinction between a Combat Log and a Menu Log. "Combat logging under the 15 second timeout window = exploiting game mechanics. Customer support does action against those reports." - BrettC (6/22/2017) The way I read that is, FD will action anything that logs before, or under the 15 second time window. As in: Get out of combat by logging in less that 15 seconds. I'm tempted to go all "Nice try, bad guy", but it really wasn't a good try.

Isolating individual comments from a conversation, to make the best use of the lack of context is a common enough dodge, but nothing suggests Menu Logging is cheating. Like Combat Logging, or Modification Cheats.

 

[EValve]

There is no way, E|D is going to change it's architecture. It just isn't. Everyone knew exactly, or at least should have, how the game was structured.

It really just comes down to how apparent the problem becomes. If it starts to be the very reason digging its grave then it would be unwise to do so. The longer you wait the heftier the bill. It was and still very much is very, very bold to go into that direction simply for its track history of severely punishing games.

ED has no track history favoring such turn-around but they will definitely as per requirement be continuously working on its network arch.
It comes down to what I concluded on, the only debatable word is "basic", the extent is just a matter of resources.

To stand around and say: "It must change because it's hard to punish Combat Loggers" is patently crazy.

Not sure where this comes from and I'm having a hard time putting it to equation but if you equate it as "cheating" then by History measure your words.

P.S
Quite daringly ignorant to presume the networking arch is and will remain static lol!

 

[Mohrgan]

Quite daringly ignorant to presume the networking arch is and will remain static lol!

Well, originally, it came down to money. If the question were posed again, it would still come down to money. Elite doesn't bank on PvP I suspect. None of the design decisions I've witnessed has been particularly favorable to PvP. Maybe they are willing to take the 'not a good PvP game' label, and live with it. None of that stuff will change. Especially not before all of the planned expansions are complete.

 

[besieger]

Well, originally, it came down to money. If the question were posed again, it would still come down to money. Elite doesn't bank on PvP I suspect. None of the design decisions I've witnessed has been particularly favorable to PvP. Maybe they are willing to take the 'not a good PvP game' label, and live with it. None of that stuff will change. Especially not before all of the planned expansions are complete.

This game is built on PVP(Not the pew pew kind), if you cannot see that you must be truly blind...

 

[GreyAreaUK]

This game is built on PVP(Not the pew pew kind)

Which is why combat logging is a rounding error in terms of things that need fixing.

 

[Mohrgan]

This game is built on PVP(Not the pew pew kind), if you cannot see that you must be truly blind...

When it's convenient someone will try to adapt the use of the phrase 'PvP', to mean the struggle between Commanders through the BGS/PP mechanics. In that regard I grudgingly have to admit, that the definition can be defended by a pedantic soul. But, my use noted, wasn't in relation to the 'expanded' definition, but rather the common use definition of PvP.

 

[besieger]

When it's convenient someone will try to adapt the use of the phrase 'PvP', to mean the struggle between Commanders through the BGS/PP mechanics. In that regard I grudgingly have to admit, that the definition can be defended by a pedantic soul. But, my use noted, wasn't in relation to the 'expanded' definition, but rather the common use definition of PvP.

PVP is PVP simple as, I couldn't give a damn about how you define PVP, I define PVP as to what it is Player vs Player in any context... BGS, Power Play, CQC, General Murder, Agreed duels etc even the Salomé event was PVP focused. Just because you define PVP in a specific way to fit your argument is not enough for the rest of us who define PVP as what it is.

 

[Vasco Sapien]

...

A prolithic in game cheat and exploiter complaining about an in game cheat and exploit.

How ironic.

 

[EValve]

Well, originally, it came down to money. If the question were posed again, it would still come down to money. Elite doesn't bank on PvP I suspect. None of the design decisions I've witnessed has been particularly favorable to PvP. Maybe they are willing to take the 'not a good PvP game' label, and live with it. None of that stuff will change. Especially not before all of the planned expansions are complete.

Networking isn't black or white , there's events that are generated client-sided (such as market values or missions to avoid cheating yes!) and other events such as instancing left to be generated by a Peer that becomes the "client".
We're basically just hosting "lan" parties every-time we enter a system.

It will continuously be improved on and developed.
Things will swivel between ED and the peers based on occurring flaws and the difficulties the game will face (without losing as you mention track of resources)
Some policing and interaction with ED servers will certainly be set in place at some point too.

Networking doesn't only profit PvP, its much, much bigger than that. Look at the stability issues for multi-crew in both ED and SC.

There's many more inherent difficulties to face down the line.
Games that've gone this way as per usual get the "I told you so" but who knows maybe they get it "right"! That's why I throw in my coins after all.

 

[Mohrgan]

PVP is PVP simple as, I couldn't give a damn about how you define PVP, I define PVP as to what it is Player vs Player in any context... BGS, Power Play, CQC, General Murder, Agreed duels etc even the Salomé event was PVP focused. Just because you define PVP in a specific way to fit your argument is not enough for the rest of us who define PVP as what it is.

Conveniently creating a fantasy meaning for a phrase, to try and bolster some notion that PvP (the proper definition) has some benefit in the game, is not unlike cheating. If one is perfectly willing to cheat in a video game, what wouldn't they do with the meaning of words. Some people can't be trusted to get along without a crutch.

Networking isn't black or white , there's events that are generated client-sided (such as market values or missions to avoid cheating yes!) and other events such as instancing left to be generated by a Peer that becomes the "client".
We're basically just hosting "lan" parties every-time we enter a system.

It will continuously be improved on and developed.
Things will swivel between ED and the peers based on occurring flaws and the difficulties the game will face (without losing as you mention track of resources)
Some policing and interaction with ED servers will certainly be set in place at some point too.

Networking doesn't only profit PvP, its much, much bigger than that. Look at the stability issues for multi-crew in both ED and SC.

There's many more inherent difficulties to face down the line.
Games that've gone this way as per usual get the "I told you so" but who knows maybe they get it "right"! That's why I throw in my coins after all.

I can certainly see FD improving the networking. But, to try and equate that with changing the architecture, is a fallacy.

 

[besieger]

Networking isn't black or white , there's events that are generated client-sided (such as market values or missions to avoid cheating yes!) and other events such as instancing left to be generated by a Peer that becomes the "client".
We're basically just hosting "lan" parties every-time we enter a system.

It will continuously be improved on and developed.
Things will swivel between ED and the peers based on occurring flaws and the difficulties the game will face (without losing as you mention track of resources)
Some policing and interaction with ED servers will certainly be set in place at some point too.

Networking doesn't only profit PvP, its much, much bigger than that. Look at the stability issues for multi-crew in both ED and SC.

There's many more inherent difficulties to face down the line.
Games that've gone this way as per usual get the "I told you so" but who knows maybe they get it "right"! That's why I throw in my coins after all.

Could not have said it better myself... the only thing I can add is, we all love this game and its in the best interests of all of us to improve and fix the issues of the game.

As for others who keep attempting to derail this thread, please stop... I am reporting comments, I intended this thread to be serious... even the reddit thread is more behaved than some of you here.

 

[GreyAreaUK]

PVP is PVP simple as, I couldn't give a damn about how you define PVP, I define PVP as to what it is Player vs Player in any context... BGS, Power Play, CQC, General Murder, Agreed duels etc even the Salomé event was PVP focused. Just because you define PVP in a specific way to fit your argument is not enough for the rest of us who define PVP as what it is.

Sadly, your reputation is pretty much below ground-level, so you may find it difficult to make anyone give a damn about it.

 

[besieger]

Conveniently creating a fantasy meaning for a phrase, to try and bolster some notion that PvP (the proper definition) has some benefit in the game, is not unlike cheating. If one is perfectly willing to cheat in a video game, what wouldn't they do with the meaning of words. Some people can't be trusted to get along without a crutch.



I can certainly see FD improving the networking. But, to try and equate that with changing the architecture, is a fallacy.

To what crutch do you refer? from my and others point of view I have no crutch and never have nor would I want one. I simply want to see an end to combat logging, something that should of never even existed.

Sadly, your reputation is pretty much below ground-level, so you may find it difficult to make anyone give a damn about it.

My rep has nothing to do with the definition of PVP, its fixed, its not me you need to care about.

 

[Mohrgan]

To what crutch do you refer? from my and others point of view I have no crutch and never have nor would I want one. I simply want to see an end to combat logging, something that should of never even existed.



My rep has nothing to do with the definition of PVP, its fixed, its not me you need to care about.

The crutch I refer to is, Cheating.

 

[GreyAreaUK]

My rep has nothing to do with the definition of PVP, its fixed, its not me you need to care about.

Oh, I don't.

But as stated above, (and with clarification for the hard of thinking) Combat Logging is a minor nuisance in the grand scheme of things because only a small number of players engage in *combat* PvP. Unless you can explain how someone yanked the network cable can affect the BGS significantly in their favour.

Now, do I need to explain any of the larger words?

 

[besieger]

The crutch I refer to is, Cheating.

What cheats to do I use to win? I can win with or without cheats... I have no issue killing others in this game.

 

[Mohrgan]

What cheats to do I use to win? I can win with or without cheats... I have no issue killing others in this game.

I don't want to talk about you. I talk in the rhetorical sense of cheaters in general. I pointed out that an attempt to redefine the phrase 'PvP', to meet your needs, after it has had a stable understanding of it's use for decades, is a kind of 'word cheating'. It doesn't go unnoticed when it's done.

I'm sure that any competent player can win without cheats. I expect people to win without cheats. Puffing your chest out to say you can win without cheats leads me to believe you want praise, for not cheating. Is that the case? Because I have never cheated, and I don't deserve a medal for that.

 

[besieger]

I don't want to talk about you. I talk in the rhetorical sense of cheaters in general. I pointed out that an attempt to redefine the phrase 'PvP', to meet your needs, after it has had a stable understanding of it's use for decades, is a kind of 'word cheating'. It doesn't go unnoticed when it's done.

I'm sure that any competent player can win without cheats. I expect people to win without cheats. Puffing your chest out to say you can win without cheats leads me to believe you want praise, for not cheating. Is that the case? Because I have never cheated, and I don't deserve a medal for that.

I don't cheat myself, I used to... I even used to make cheats for games. you claim I am attempting to redefine what PVP means, no I taking exactly what it means. you on are the one pretending it only means shooting another player.

 

[Mohrgan]

I don't cheat myself, I used to... I even used to make cheats for games. you claim I am attempting to redefine what PVP means, no I taking exactly what it means. you on are the one pretending it only means shooting another player.

Pedantic comments don't change the fact that when peeps use the phrase PvP, it means combat between players. Go on with your word-dance. I won't change your mind, and you likely won;t change anyone else's mind either.

You used to cheat? So, why should anyone trust your word? That means you have cheated while engaging in a form of entertainment. I don't know where that comes from. To come in public and pontificate about cheating, when you are an admitted cheater is, well... You'll create a word for that too, how about we use the word 'Emergent' for now?

P.S. In a different thread, I mentioned that the cheaters had paid their dues, and the matter should be dropped. Dropped until one of these cheaters comes to the interweb to decry cheating. The need for 'back rubs' and 'group therapy' over CL'ing is just plain getting embarrassing.

 

[Riverside]

Sadly, your reputation is pretty much below ground-level, so you may find it difficult to make anyone give a damn about it.

That's not really on GreyAreaUK, attack the post not the poster.

Direct PvP may well be a minority activity in this game, but if so, so is every other activity with the possible exception of Exploration. Encouraging players to stay & face the consequences of their actions rather than facing a potentially worse consequence is why we are getting a Karma system.

I see the need to encourage players not to use out of game mechanisms to avoid the consequences of in-game decisions as the highest priority challenge for FDev to overcome (yes, higher than beigegate). For every bad thing that happens, 10 good things are needed to compensate. This works as much for how the game is perceived by it's audience as for anything actually in-game.

When someone posts about a bad experience it gets loads of views, and perception of the game is unreasonably skewed.

Look at the big picture, remove the primary reason for those bad experiences, move on to the next challenge, which is ganking/sealclubbing. I believe fixing CLogging will go a long way towards reducing ganking, taking pressure off the karma system to be all things to all people, and I don't think discouraging CLogging needs to wait for the karma system.

Sealclubbers CLog too, remember