To be honest, Ai think Engineers has made the issue far worse than it used to be. Before you had a much better chance of escape when attacked in numbers and to out fit a ship and fight back if you had the loadout and the skill. This just isn't the case anymore and all changes that are coming point to it getting worst. So again, I think if blame is to be laid it's squarely on FD for creating the circumstances that bring us to where we are. This is as true for the ganking as it is for the logging and neither side is satisfied.
An investigation into Frontier's actions on Combat Logging
- Thread starter ryan_m
- Start date
Last edited:
You already directly quoted the text where I explicitly described as best as I know how what the difference is between an "exploit" and a "cheat".
Is my text so amazing to read that you just want me to repeat myself that badly, or what?
Granted, someone else pointed out that in dodgeball, going out-of-bounds on a playground is generally labelled 'cheating' - so just imagine it as going out of bounds & then pretending you never did. Or walking away from the dodgeball court altogether. Whatever.
It's funny how the ONLY TIME words like these words are bandied about, it's by knuckleheads like you complaining about the community you're so ironically painting with an ugly-brush.
I wonder why it is you don't remain a part of those other gaming communities, mmmmmmm...?
Only if you plug your ears/cover your eyes and deny discussion on the matter entirely, which you seem keen to do.
So funny I forgot to laugh.
And this is the day V'larr became a fan of Ziggy Stardust.
Yea I love stupid analogies, I make them all the time!
I've never heard anyone use ''exploit'' anywhere but in video games I think. But glad you agree your analogy didn't make any sense anyway.
Last edited:
You've changed topics.
Because of the death penalty: Having people "die" when the game crashes or disconnects is a bad idea.
Or do you support a "game crashed" penalty? Should players be punished when FD puts out bad code?
Also: PvP is 50% losses. Any real penalty for dying in PvP destroys the game.
- - - Updated - - -
Buying plane tickets a 2am on Tuesday.
Card counting (not considered cheating in most venues as long as it's in your head).
Accepting a severance from your position and coming back as a contractor.
Not paying taxes for a decade because of a loss you claimed in the 1990s.
How difficult the game is not directly related to the death penalty. Difficulty is how difficult it is to succeed; the death penalty is a punishment to be applied after you already failed, and don't directly influence the chance of success.
In fact, it's often the opposite; a harsh death penalty forces the devs to make sure the player will almost never lose or die, making the game far too easy. On the other hand, a game without death penalties, where you merely respawn, allows the devs to make it hard enough players will be spending much of their time taking a dirt nap (or getting acquainted with vacuum, in the case of previous Elite games, none of which had any death penalty worth noting).
Thus, the death penalties in ED are the likely reason why it's absurdly easier than every previous Elite game ever made.
Last edited:
Not quite; a fraud involves breaking rules, whereas an exploit doesn't. A better term for real life exploits would be "Lifehacks", as in using objects, processes, etc, in an unintended, but very useful, way.IRL its called fraud
(Of note: "Lifehack" is a word created too recently to have a consistent meaning in dictionaries, so you might find conflicting definitions online.)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exploit_(computer_security)
The term is a technical one. Any moral value attached to it is context dependent, optional and subjective. (Which, I suppose, is exactly why FD chose to use that particular word.)
Get rid of the rebuy.
![[VR] Mad Mike](https://forums-cdn.zaonce.net/data/avatars/m/27/27910.jpg?1553527108){kind=avatar}
oh god no, this would remove the final semblance of a remotely believable game (given the confines of the topic, which is arguably unbelievable to begin with), and would mean any chance of ever having real consequences in the game for our actions will be gone.
we have CQC for our consequence free pew pew imo.
Indeed: "exploit a tax loophole" is a common statement and not fraud. Heck: it's basically the definition of a loophole.
Also: Exploit a type of merger called an inversion to exploit lower tax rates in Ireland.
- - - Updated - - -
1) There's nothing realistic about immortality nor an "insurance" that charged no premium and gives you 95% coverage for loss.
2) You'd still be out unredeemed bounties, exploration data, cargo, distance traveled since last star-port, etc... hardly nothing.
If you wanted "real" consequences: you'd make death put you on a respawn timer.
you are correct about the ship destruction, we have no escape pod, not even a nod to one which shows a short 2 min ejection sequence and that does bother me.
the insurance, we ONLY pay the excess, which @5% is actually a pretty harsh excess when you think about it. this is actually not a cheat, the pilots federation covers the actual premium.
now, if you want to talk about other things missing in the game which take away from believable consequences and just shout GAME!!! in your face, i am more than happy to chat about that with you, but that is not for this thread.....
you are right tho, there are loads of things glossed over, it does not mean we should gloss over more..... imo of course.
now we have magic pockets for materials i actually think there is an argument for keeping bounty vouchers and exploration data... and insurance for cargo was always meant to be an optional premium we could take if we want (not sure if it has been removed but it even used to be in the right hand panel in our ship)
the above is not the way i would have gone of course. i would not have had magic pockets but would have had places we could store our mats etc but then those we did not stow properly we would lose on destruction
BUT
i would have had a dark souls type collection mechanic where if we went back in a timely manner we had the option to salvage everything we dropped via our own personal location beacon to our destroyed ship, possibly with the chance of getting an npc pirate sniffing around.
even cargo, less some which got destoyed, ideally bundled up for the larger ships in blocks far bigger than 1 ton... indeed there are a lot of game machanics which could be added at a later date here once we can go eva.. but i have totally digressed now sorry
Last edited:
In exchange for what?
You get free insurance, that pays out an infinite amount of times, regardless of fault. Seems magical.
No. but it does make glossing over an individual thing in the name of fun more tolerable.
We have instant communications across galaxies. We also (per cannon) survive ship destruction. Why we cannot bring data with us is confusing.
And I would not have made Arsenic unpurchasable. But that's me.
Javert
Volunteer Moderator
My idea for this was a similar thing but more nuanced and limited.
https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showt...ntacts-Menu-for-CGs-and-other-High-Risk-Areas
My thought was more along the lines of somehow capping the potential losses of trading ships during CG and other high danger activities. This could be done through the ability to purchase extra insurance waivers for high danger areas. See the link above for details.
There is a common term when it comes to those things: acceptable breaks from reality. The little, and large, things that if kept realistic would ruin the game for many, or most, players.
Common examples are respawning (very few people like Hardcore/Ironman modes), travel time (anything even close to realistic would likely drive away more than 90% of the playerbase of most games), damage models (having to deal with realistic injury is a drag), healing (months of intensive care and years of therapy for defying death isn't exactly exciting), and even seemingly less important things like bathroom breaks.
Given that, sorry but I don't consider realism particularly important. Realism for realism's sake is a sure recipe for a disastrously boring game. Any bit of realism added to the game must be chosen and implemented in such a way that it never hinders the experience, the enjoyment, otherwise it's better to not even bother with it.
You are preaching to the choir.
Depends on the game in question. In a flight sim: I generally want an extremely high realism. In an arcade game, a very high abstraction. Most other things fall in-between.