Deleted member 110222
D
Same here, believe me. The option would be lovely. But this is really a topic for another thread.
PvP An Investigation Into Frontier's Actions on Combat Logging, Part 2
- Thread starter Rinzler o7o7o7
- Start date
Same here, believe me. The option would be lovely. But this is really a topic for another thread.
How so? Its a potential solution for the given problem that is combat logging. Regardless ill end it now.
There already is zero risk. It's called solo. If OPEN mode had a flag for PvP, or conversely a flag for PvE ONLY, the player would show up as such and anyone 'role-playing' a pirate would know that player target isn't valid before they wasted time intercepting. Would find that more people come to OPEN mode because it caters to a wider audience. THEN you can introduce more reasons to fly PvP flagged i.e. run the gauntlet or some kind of "British bulldog" type activities... anything like that. What it does mean, though, is that you end up with more population in OPEN, which is always a GOOD start!
You are already able to do that...
The 'investigation', such as it was described in the OP clearly wasn't enough to trigger whatever FDev's minimum level is. It was background noise. In the responses FDev gave they said they have a system, but it's super-secret & we're not privy to it's details.
From these two events we can establish that some in the community think the levels are not aggressive enough. Have a read though this thread & see if you can find any actual suggestions or opinions for what those levels should be. There's maybe three people who did this (I am one). Also earlier in this thread I gave my opinion on what I'd expected the OP's 'investigation' to be. What the OP describes is childishly naive and achieves nothing other than annoying FDev. They are if anything, now less likely to do anything more than they currently are.
Elaborate
Last edited:
If a player runs a private group they need no reason to modify the userlist (ie boot a player), it's their group, they can do what they like in it & enforce whatever arbitrary rules they like, and if the player doesn't agree with those rules well tough.
If FDev runs a group it needs to lay down precise rules, and any ban needs to be justified with corroborating, pretty conclusive evidence otherwise the players mum will give them earache that frankly, FDev don't need. So they don't.
Presumably by gitting gud.
I cant tell if you're just being rude or missed my point altogether. What im referring to is an open experience with hundreds of other players rather than be stuck in a smaller private group. And "gitting gud" is a pretty childish mindset when trying to ruffle the feathers of people like myself would couldnt give a frogs behind about PVP.
As with all of my posts, please take it as you find it. I rarely intend to insult, but if you want to take it that way that's up to you.
Subsequently i am not easily offended, being a veteran has that effect lol, no worries my friend.
You can join PG that have different rules than Open in order to enforce PvE gameplay.
If you want to play in Open, acknowledge how it works and adapt : Is a full cargo Anaconda loadout smart to use in Open ?
A good Anaconda loadout with strong defencive modules will allow you to not worry about ganking squad. Yes you will loose a bit of cargo space and jump range but what is the most important between cr/hr or being safe from the rebuy screen ?
I don't know about FD being discouraged to do anything more just because noise is being generated yet again about an issue that hasn't been resolved yet. If that was their approach then we'd have heard nothing about a fix for the beige plague from them and yet they previewed a quick look at more colourful planet tech during the Beyond presentation. This follow up thread really is no different than the series of threads demanding communication from FD about the beige plague and supplying evidence of the issue. The only difference is SDC's ability to rustle up some out of game noise via articles and videos from gaming news sites.
As for this investigation not being comprehensive enough, I agree and I also said so with my first post in this thread and suggested a follow up experiment to it before deciding whether FD are really not doing anything. In my opinion if someone's connection consistently drops during combat more than twice every 2 weeks then FD should be sending them a warning email about their connection and how to improve it, etc as standard procedure. If this player's connection loss pattern continues then punitive measures should be taken. Or simply implement CMDR_Cosmicspacehead's suggestion about a tagging system:
https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showt...ent-Proposal?p=5643210&viewfull=1#post5643210
As that is a very good solution in my opinion.
The alternative to this is to maximise on cargo & accept the occasional rebuy screen. The important part to both strategies is not complaining about being shot at.
It seems we agree on every point except the net effect of this particular approach to achieving a goal. I believe it is a cynical attempt by the OP to attack FDev by tagging onto a known issue, with no real interest in improving the game for all players (only themselves), you believe they are basically honest in intent & just misguided in their approach.
Anticipating that there would be some sort of toxicity in response to the 5 for 1 exploit being acted upon, I started a thread in the suggestions section to encourage finding a workable solution for what I know to be a major issue for those whose standing in the community was most adversely affected by the exposure of the 5 for 1 exploit, hoping to encourage that part of the community to get behind closing more 'loopholes' rather than just raging against the tide.
But no. Minimal interest from those affected without enormous effort on my part to engage them, condescension for my not being part of the 'in-crowd', my playstyle is looked down on (I PvE in Open, I'm the piggy in the middle in the PvP vs PvE war).
Nevertheless a solid, workable solution has been found, it is easily implementable (AFAIK), but there is minimal interest in debating how best to fix these issues, only more complaints & fixation on distractions like where this thread got put.
So it boils down to whether or not the OP has an ulterior motive. From my personal experience I'd say they do. I'd also say that diplomacy & persuasion work way better to achieving a goal than rage & threats of action. I just want the problem to be solved. I've done my bit, now get behind it & persuade FDev that you (as a community) will accept it.
Or keep bickering, see how that pans out.
Just to lay my cards out, I don't think anything SDC does as a group is innocent in its intent. As a group they have shown to always be self-serving and they will probably always continue to be self-serving and largely dishonest in public with their intent. They have a penchant for defamation and shaming tactics that aims to always put them on top and everyone else (especially any credible source of rivals they might have in PvP) on the bottom. That doesn't however necesarilly mean that individual members cannot be sincere in their intent. Rinzler is one of those individuals who I believe actually means what he says and is pretty honest and straightforward about stuff he feels strongly about in the game. At least that's what I think.
Long story short I'm pretty neutral when it comes to this thread. If SDC want to investigate FD's approach to combat logging that's fine by me, they posted this thread so I offered my two creds worth of what I think of their investigation technique, i.e. it needs work bois. They obviously have a desire to have a swing at FD and that colours the way they went about this investigation. That's their business though, not mine. I'll give my thoughts on their investigation and its up to them to decide on their approach in future. This thread subsequently became a platform for a nice big juicy discussion on combat logging so I joined in because the issue is of interest to me.
It's because of the participation levels in this thread that I found out about your suggestion thread and Cosmicspacehead's proposed solution in amongst reading some really good arguments on both sides. That's a good thing in my book because it moves the discussion on this issue forward. The extent of the ulterior motives behind this thread is basically: SDC got another public poke at FD and mention of their name got the usual forum crowd salty again. Big whoop if I'm being honest because the subsequent debate ended up being something way more valuable than that.
It doesn't just boil down to ulterior motives in my opinion because the debate and discussions became greater than any ulterior motives at play. You say "keep bickering and see how that pans out" well the thing is the bickering comes from certain antagonists on both sides of the fence and from people that are unwilling to compromise or look past their binary black or white view of the world for one reason or another. I too want the problem to be solved and I don't see the problem getting exposure every now and then as an obstacle to it getting solved. You are completely right though that more diplomacy and persuasion is a far better approach than raging and threats.
Greetings,
Well, after 101 pages no one will probably read this. Oh well.
Taking a totally wild guess...In the last four years there has probably been 20,000 posts about Combat logging. FD's solution went with the 15 second timer quite awhile back. I thought it was a good compromise decision (no, not perfect) so that FD didn't have to Police the issue a lot. Then they can deal with the more difficult problems. Let's play the game. If the timer also applies to a forced Internet disconnect (pulling the plug) then we should be OK as FD designed it. If not then maybe FD needs to take another look. If one doesn't like the solution FD went with then that is another issue.
Any user test should include detailed information including:
1. Understanding exactly how FD responded to the issue using the 15 sec timer and how it works.
2. Seeing if the timer works for forced disconnects.
3. Test for work-arounds to defeat the timer.
4. Be objective in analysis with facts that are measurable and observable in a controlled environment.
5. Send the results to FD and recommend changes.
Item 5 opens up a can of worms as subjective can come into play with personal opinions, interpretations, points of view, emotions and judgment. Then the tests lose credibility when one wants to invoke their personal solution for Combat logging and promotes the results that fit their opinion. Also a FD solution is like a text message interpreted 100 different ways depending upon who is reading it and their personal concerns. A Combat log can also seem to be totally unfair but not knowing exactly how it currently works can generate emotions. We've been there and done that! Add another 10,000 posts soon.
I have a Net7 switch I use to disconnect from the Internet whenever I'm not using the computer or just working with local files. Makes it impossible for any hacker to access a computer not online. With my years of resolving corporate computer issues on a national level I can confirm that there are ways around ISP security to find your address then delete your Windows folder! There are sick people out here. I've never used it playing ED as being mostly a Trader I'm not interested in Open PvP Combat. I can more than handle any attacks in Solo...Well, I just got my 660 mil Type-10 with two Taipans ready to play with my first Thargoid so we'll see how that works. 30 mil rebuy but I have lots of credits.
If FD wants to test this just let me know when and where. Interdict me, text to setup comms, fire a couple of rounds so I'm under attack. Stop. I'll text, "5 seconds to disconnect then do it". I have both PC and PlayStation versions with all the top ships maxed out. Then we'll know. Of course FD can easily do this without my input. Maybe they already have so post a reply if the 15 sec timer also works for forced disconnects. Let's start there working with what FD setup then make positive improvements to make it better. ED is getting more dangerous with every upgrade! Maybe ED is trying to get us to work together.
Still I'm a little rusty flying my new Type-10 (There is real life out here we often have to deal with) and am having problems getting through the mailslot. I've flown every other huge ship in the game manually without issues. I love sliding a Cutter around. Maybe it is the whale tail...May I suggest have fun playing the game and don't get so serious about it.
Best Regards and fly safe!
Well, after 101 pages no one will probably read this. Oh well.
Taking a totally wild guess...In the last four years there has probably been 20,000 posts about Combat logging. FD's solution went with the 15 second timer quite awhile back. I thought it was a good compromise decision (no, not perfect) so that FD didn't have to Police the issue a lot. Then they can deal with the more difficult problems. Let's play the game. If the timer also applies to a forced Internet disconnect (pulling the plug) then we should be OK as FD designed it. If not then maybe FD needs to take another look. If one doesn't like the solution FD went with then that is another issue.
Any user test should include detailed information including:
1. Understanding exactly how FD responded to the issue using the 15 sec timer and how it works.
2. Seeing if the timer works for forced disconnects.
3. Test for work-arounds to defeat the timer.
4. Be objective in analysis with facts that are measurable and observable in a controlled environment.
5. Send the results to FD and recommend changes.
Item 5 opens up a can of worms as subjective can come into play with personal opinions, interpretations, points of view, emotions and judgment. Then the tests lose credibility when one wants to invoke their personal solution for Combat logging and promotes the results that fit their opinion. Also a FD solution is like a text message interpreted 100 different ways depending upon who is reading it and their personal concerns. A Combat log can also seem to be totally unfair but not knowing exactly how it currently works can generate emotions. We've been there and done that! Add another 10,000 posts soon.
I have a Net7 switch I use to disconnect from the Internet whenever I'm not using the computer or just working with local files. Makes it impossible for any hacker to access a computer not online. With my years of resolving corporate computer issues on a national level I can confirm that there are ways around ISP security to find your address then delete your Windows folder! There are sick people out here. I've never used it playing ED as being mostly a Trader I'm not interested in Open PvP Combat. I can more than handle any attacks in Solo...Well, I just got my 660 mil Type-10 with two Taipans ready to play with my first Thargoid so we'll see how that works. 30 mil rebuy but I have lots of credits.
If FD wants to test this just let me know when and where. Interdict me, text to setup comms, fire a couple of rounds so I'm under attack. Stop. I'll text, "5 seconds to disconnect then do it". I have both PC and PlayStation versions with all the top ships maxed out. Then we'll know. Of course FD can easily do this without my input. Maybe they already have so post a reply if the 15 sec timer also works for forced disconnects. Let's start there working with what FD setup then make positive improvements to make it better. ED is getting more dangerous with every upgrade! Maybe ED is trying to get us to work together.
Still I'm a little rusty flying my new Type-10 (There is real life out here we often have to deal with) and am having problems getting through the mailslot. I've flown every other huge ship in the game manually without issues. I love sliding a Cutter around. Maybe it is the whale tail...May I suggest have fun playing the game and don't get so serious about it.
Best Regards and fly safe!
Last edited:
I sincerely hope Rinzler & Ryan_m take what you just said on board, maybe it will carry more weight in their minds to come from a respected PvPer rather than an unknown outsider like myself.
CLogging doesn't affect me, or the way I play. If it happens (and it probably does, I'm currently tooling around Colonia in a fully equipped Corvette & meeting a lot of diamondbacks & AspXs) I don't notice, if someone is capitalising on CLogging or mode switching to make money or influence the BGS I don't notice or care about that either. I just like flying my Corvette, it keeps me safe, it took me to Beagle Point (fully equipped to deal with any hostile encounter).
What does affect me is various sections of the community pushing & pulling on FDevs shirtsleeves, distracting them from producing content. I just want atmospheric landings & maybe to get out of my seat. Others want different things, and I want them to get those things as quickly as is practical, so they can move on to working on the thing I want.
So when I see a potential distraction from the big goal, I want it to be dealt with efficiently. Either quickly establish that it shouldn't be a priority (as I argued with the orrery view for example), or that it is worthwhile & find a solution as I did with CLogging/cheating.
The 'bickering' as I describe it in this thread is a tremendously inefficient way to come to a consensus on a course of action. So while it's great that some good has come out of this, a considerable amount of harm has been needlessly produced too, all in the name of raising awareness of a problem that the community overall and FDev in particular were already well aware of.
This effort would have been considerably better spent on 'raising awareness' of a potential solution rather than just that the problem still exists.
Arguendo
Volunteer Moderator
I don't disagree with much of that, you however said that "FDev have taken action". That's the only part of your comment I disagree with. No evidence has been presented that shows FDev having taken any action against combatloggers since around March last year. Having "a system" is not taking action, it's monitoring. Two very different things.
People generally don't make a public fuss when caught cheating, the example from March 2017 only got posted on reddit due to it being later withdrawn IIRC. FDEV could clue us in, but their policy is no naming and shaming so it's a sticky wicket.
FDev say they have one, the OP tested it & it didn't register as bad enough to notice. A more aggressive test would establish the point at which they take notice (if indeed they do), and then the second point at which they take action. The OP's test was background noise IMO.
OTOH is the knowledge on how much Clogging is too much something you would want to release to the wider community? Would that help the cause, or hinder it? I think it would hinder it.