PvP An Investigation Into Frontier's Actions on Combat Logging, Part 2

[Stigbob]

As an FDEV customer I'm glad SDC doesn't believe the lies FDEV sold us from day 1 about combat log monitoring.

Lies ?, I've always had the impression they don't really care about clogging

 

[Martian Successor]

And what of the 60,000,000 in bonds and bounties gracefully, peacefully and quietly delivered by those playing in Solo mode or in Private Groups, out of the reach of those who would attempt to stop them?
What of the countless number of Mostly Open players who willfully change game modes when approaching hostile stations to deliver their cargo, bonds or bounties, out of the reach of those who would do them harm?
Would this also not be considered Influence that Should Not Have Been?

How about those Open players who Block others, preventing or greatly reducing the likelihood of instancing with them, thus also preventing themselves from coming to harm?

Your point is taken, and earned, but the otherwise completely legitimate means of circumventing encounters only serves to illustrate an even deeper design issue from which there may never be any real recovery.

For ill or for good all of those methods you mentioned are intended features of the game, combat logging is not. Therefore anything kept as a result of circumnavigating the game's intended functions should be considered as "influence that should not have been."

 

[Enderby]

I think they do care but they wanted to do their aliens instead.

 

[Arindor]

For ill or for good all of those methods you mentioned are intended features of the game, combat logging is not. Therefore anything kept as a result of circumnavigating the game's intended functions should be considered as "influence that should not have been."

Brilliantly put sir!

 

[Riverside]

Lies ?, I've always had the impression they don't really care about clogging

My impression is they do care but are more benevolent than some would like. They may take mitigating circumstances into account, we don't know, and cannot unless they tell us.

 

[Leo Sagan]

I think they do care but they wanted to do their aliens instead.

And their Multicrew. And their CQC. And their Powerplay. Which were all huge successes, as we all know.

 

[Martian Successor]

I suppose an equal argument could be made that persisting to attack someone who has requested that you cease doing so also interferes with the experience of other users of the game or any Online Features.
Likewise this could easily encompass Station Ramming, Planetary Ganking, Private Group invasions, unwanted chat transmissions, and repeated interdictions.

Just all depends on how well you grease your legal representative and how much you've contributed to the judge's campaign fund.

Legalise is what legalise is. It is there to protect the entity whose "thing" we are using and grant them the ability to interpret anything they deem an undesirable use of their intellectual property as punishable at their own discretion.

 

[Stigbob]

My impression is they do care but are more benevolent than some would like. They may take mitigating circumstances into account, we don't know, and cannot unless they tell us.

Could be, they seemed genuinely surprised at the widespread legit player support there was for account bans of the 5-1 exploiters. So FDEV being a bit too lenient isn't stretching the truth.

 

[Achilles7]

Don't call me a cheat if you can't back it up with evidence. And either way, accusing me of cheating does not subtract from what I have posted about Frontier's negligence regarding serial taskkillers.

How many times? This is old news! All of that is moot - we can however, discuss your character & motivation for reigniting a dead debate! Frontier pay lip-service to CL, saying the right things to placate, but their priority is to not rock the revenue stream boat - 3 yrs in the making - we've seen it in every area of the game!

& Rinzler, there is such thing as guilt by association - actually no, that's unfair, it seems highly likely that you stood up at the SDC AGM to protest against the well documented engineers cheat like some shining beacon of integrity - I can see it now: "I refuse to participate in this disgraceful expedient deception!!...f@ggots*!" (*obligatory SDC-term in all exchanges).

I can also see why you feel victimised when you are surely Elite's equivalent of Oskar Schindler. How dare we doubt your honesty & altruism!?

 

[Banana's_Are_Good_For_You]

Objection your majesty, this witness appears to be a monkey in an ill fitting helmet.

Pretty sure it's a Bonobo, at least it thinks it's a Bonobo....but don't ask me to talk to it, it might be hungry.

 

[Sirius Agent]

I suppose an equal argument could be made that persisting to attack someone who has requested that you cease doing so also interferes with the experience of other users of the game or any Online Features.
Likewise this could easily encompass Station Ramming, Planetary Ganking, Private Group invasions, unwanted chat transmissions, and repeated interdictions.

Just all depends on how well you grease your legal representative and how much you've contributed to the judge's campaign fund.

Nah don't bother it's pointless here. In this topic only whining griefers have right no matter what

 

[seko]

only read it briefly, but I think this relates to using code to change the gameplay

These threads are just such great entertainment.

Let's discuss something we already know...

Then let's rally the forum attorneys

Then let's rehash what we already know again

Then let everyone realize that FD is fully aware and that

NOTHING is going to CHANGE

Are we there yet?

made me chuckle, as we are getting all legal (and I guess different legal systems) - 'de minimis non curat praetor'








'

 

[Martian Successor]

My impression is they do care but are more benevolent than some would like. They may take mitigating circumstances into account, we don't know, and cannot unless they tell us.

That's why I suggested this test was too easily excusable as a mitigating circumstance such as spotty internet. FD could believably be giving this offending account the benefit of the doubt. A more definitive test of FD's commitment would in my opinion be to have this alt account combat log once every 2 weeks for the next 5 months. Every 2 weeks is a much more consistent pattern that would eliminate the benefit of the doubt even for charitable types like FD. If they don't at least issue a warning after that then that would be very telling of FD's commitment.

This test/investigation is incomplete without that follow up as far as I'm concerned.

 

[Enderby]

Does it boil down to, "I'm cross I couldn't shoot up that guy when he stopped the game."?
Or is there more to it?

 

[Martian Successor]

Nah don't bother it's pointless here. In this topic only whining griefers have right no matter what

No. Just those who can successfully make a 4 out of a 2+2.

Does it boil down to, "I'm cross I couldn't shoot up that guy when he stopped the game."?
Or is there more to it?

For SDC, probably not.

For those of us wanting a fairer, less exploitable game, yes.

 

[NascentChemist]

No, really! Try pirating someone or claiming the million CR bounty on a newbie-killer if they're also known taskkillers.

That rules PvP piracy and PvP bounty hunting out as valid playstyles, which were the two activities I was most excited for when getting into PvP.

PvP piracy is difficult because someone created a narrative that most interdicters are out to murder everyone using asymmetrical builds, thus incentivizing indiscriminate use of task killing.

 

[Stigbob]

Does it boil down to, "I'm cross I couldn't shoot up that guy when he stopped the game."?
Or is there more to it?

It's more along the lines of "force them play with me" I think.

 

[Martian Successor]

It's more along the lines of "force them play with me" I think.

Depends which group of people you are referring to. There are some very legitimate reasons why combat logging ruins the game and it's not all to do with everyone's favourite pinata; PvP.

 

[zantar]

PvP piracy is difficult because someone created a narrative that most interdicters are out to murder everyone using asymmetrical builds, thus incentivizing indiscriminate use of task killing.

I wonder where so many players got that idea. [where is it]

 

[Riverside]

That's why I suggested this test was too easily excusable as a mitigating circumstance such as spotty internet. FD could believably be giving this offending account the benefit of the doubt. A more definitive test of FD's commitment would in my opinion be to have this alt account combat log once every 2 weeks for the next 5 months. Every 2 weeks is a much more consistent pattern that would eliminate the benefit of the doubt even for charitable types like FD. If they don't at least issue a warning after that then that would be very telling of FD's commitment.

This test/investigation is incomplete without that follow up as far as I'm concerned.

When I started reading the OP in this thread I assumed it would be multiple clogs per day, attempting to establish that FDev do not take any action under even extreme circumstances (I would be disappointed, but not surprised if this was the case). Then if a datapoint is established beyond which FDev do take notice, try again less frequently to determine the point where FDev ignore it. That would have been interesting to learn. This is just a cynical attempt to make FDev look bad by pointing out a known issue in as salty a way as possible imo.