An investigation into Frontier's actions on Combat Logging

[the100thmonkey]

Except that this is a video game and PvP is an accepted part of video games that allowe PvP. Robbing people or beating them up is not an acceptable part of life and in fact it's against the law.

The universe allows you to go and beat the crap out of any granny you please. The police would likely want to talk to you if you decided to use the opportunity, but I suspect that you wouldn't want to anyway.

The current controversy would suggest that the second part of your proposition is contentious at best.

Basically, there's nowhere near enough "why" in E:D. Give people a bloody reason, and the combustion ends.

 

[[VR] Mad Mike]

Except that this is a video game and PvP is an accepted part of video games that allowe PvP. Robbing people or beating them up is not an acceptable part of life and in fact it's against the law.

indeed, but equally its against IN GAME law in ED too.... as such IN GAME the consequences should, in the right places, be similar to the consequences in real life.

surely if a player wants to play a "bad guy" then they want to experience the consequences of said bad guy.... no? or do they just want the rush of blapping the victim and then none of the downsides?

 

[GodBlock]

implement open pve mode

PvP people still get what they want, somewhere to do what they do.. anyone wanting to risk it can do..

PvE folks get somewhere to play in open without hassling that poor sod Möbius who does frontiers job for them

Not everyone knows about Möbius either.. I went for almost a year in solo before I heard about it in an OA video

 

[DefiledDragon]

Oh! You want a David Quote?

I'll give you a David Quote...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n7tGV7VVlhE​

Interesting that he said "I've been killed by people" and not "I've been attacked by other players, but I combat logged! hahahahaha, in your FACE griefers!"...

 

[DefiledDragon]

How about we bann the gankers to solo instead?

But they're not committing a ban worthy offence or indeed any other form of offence. They're just playing the game.

 

[Arguendo]

114 pages in and the only two things that really leap out of this thread are these:

1. Frontier have not persuaded players concerned about combat logging that they are doing enough about it.

2. Frontier have not persuaded players concerned about crime and punishment that they are doing enough about it.

That's the most succinct post in this thread so far!
Out of Rep, sorry.

 

[Arguendo]

But they're not committing a ban worthy offence or indeed any other form of offence. They're just playing the game.

Actually, they are playing the players, not the game. There is a very distinct difference.
Absolutely within the rules of the game as it stands, but let's not kid ourselves about the motivation behind it. Pixels ain't got nothing to do with it, but it's frequently used as a counterpoint from the ones playing the players.

 

[DefiledDragon]

Greifer scum, question for you.

Whats the difference between a player in Solo constantly that you never engage with, and someone you engage with briefly only for them to Log and go back to solo? Surely by your logic these are both "cheating" you out of a kill.

Genuine question.

Spineless gimp, answer for you.

A player who chooses to play in solo because they don't want to be destroyed has made the right decision.

A player who chooses to play in open and doesn't want to be destroyed has made the wrong decision. If they have also combat logged, they have used an exploit and should be punished for doing so.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Most PvPers started as PvE players. I did. I've done every PvE activity this game has to offer to a level and extent which would make the King of All Carebears proud.

Thing is, unless you have some kind of idiot savant tendencies, PvE holds no lasting challenge and becomes boring over time. It's just too easy.

PvP remains the only true challenge in the game for me. Going up against unfavourable odds and either prevailing or at the very least living to tell the tale is where the fun is for me. That having been said I'm not above ganging up on and destroying low threat CMDRs in badly configured trade ships.

Why?

Because the Elite Community contains more entitled fully grown crybabies than any other gaming community I've come across in over 20 years of gaming. Blowing up these whinging, whining, selfish players is immensely satisfying. But how do I know my target is one of these overgrown manbabies? Kindly this very forum provided me with the empirical evidence I needed to justify my endless murder spree. 70% of these awful wailing adult infants voted against instant ship transfer. A staggeringly selfish action which deprived the community as a whole of a massive QoL improvement, for which they can never be forgiven. It was an epiphany for me. These are the very same people who are now crying about their precious gimballed weapons being nerfed, and who complain that turrets should be an "I Win" button because they cost more than fixed weapons. They also howled about the AI buffs which came along with Engineers, and had the AI reduced to the rather unchallenging level it is now.

So, I can merrily go about my business destroying every CMDR I possibly can, because in 7 out of 10 cases, supported by solid empirical evidence from this forum, they had it coming.

I hope this helps

Yes it helps, thanks!

It's a nice illustration why Open PvE mode would be a good solution against self delusional pillocks like you. Justifying their actions by generalising and demonising. And only because you're salty about other people disagreeing with you on a minor feature.

It shows the peevish nature. It shows how you and your ilk always shy away from responsibility for your actions. It's not your doing, it's the 70% that disagreed with you that made you the way you are.

Thanks again I'd like to read more of these.

Edit: by the way, you know why I voted delayed? It would be cheaper. I voted for the option that allowed starting CMDRs to also enjoy this feature as the selfish pillock I am.

 

[Knightshark]

Interesting that he said "I've been killed by people" and not "I've been attacked by other players, but I combat logged! hahahahaha, in your FACE griefers!"...

God doesn't care. (He is a dev)

 

[_Fissure]

It's not taking sides, it's an observation of the events.
I am entitled to an opinion just like anyone else here, I am not employed by Frontier.

I understand that you are not an employee, but you and others do hold an authoritative position on the official forums. Again, I understand what FDs policy is; I've just never seen a forum where moderators would get involved in debates, let alone make 'observations' in support of one POV or another.

 

[DefiledDragon]

On the contrary they said joining a Private Group meant you had to play by their rules. So it's probably safe to assume that they DO. As I recall they banned one player for doing so. At least that's what he was spewing all over the forums when he finally was able to come back and rant about it.

No, they actually said the exact opposite of that. Their official response was that the enforcement of rules within the private group was the responsibility of the group leaders themselves and that FD would take no action against players breaking those rules, that was the duty of the group leader.

- - - Updated - - -

i totally agree... however this is surely true of all the exploits in the game - and there ARE many.

too many people (not saying you) pick and choose what exploits they think are ok and they do them, and what are not.

hell there is a 100mil c per hr video doing the rounds which is full of exploits and i know for a fact a few who whine about combat logging have done it.. they are now loaded, money is no issue for them at all... so now they will potentially grief other players and use the "so what its only credits!" despite coming into their riches through exploits.

if there is one thing which grinds my gears more than anything it is hypocrisy and imo there is a lot of that to go around.

either exploits are bad, or they are acceptable... but people should not do one on the sly and name and shame on another imo... esp when some of them are doing a form of logging which FD have green lit as ok!.

right now i choose not to play in open... because IF i was in open and some twit in a cutter decided to blap me when i was in my adder, damn straight i would be tempted to log. (note when i played in open i NEVER logged, i am just givein a reason why it is bad to attempt to force PvEers into an activity they dislike

I will say 1 thing of SDC, they are open about their antics..... and AFAIK do not hide their cmdr names...... the same is not true of all player killers in the game

Some people are happy to exploit game mechanics in order to get ahead. It used to happen a lot in The Division where people would exploit mission glitches to complete them quickly and farm gear. Personally I don't go out of my way like that. I've stacked missions, but only when said missions have been available on the BBS at the same time, but that's just common sense.

 

[Arguendo]

I understand that you are not an employee, but you and others do hold an authoritative position on the official forums. Again, I understand what FDs policy is; I've just never seen a forum where moderators would get involved in debates, let alone make 'observations' in support of one POV or another.

Are you saying that moderators on reddit don't get involved in the debates? Heck, some of them create the topics!

 

[Asp Explorer]

I had to run to the shop to buy a new lulzbucket - but the store was closed due to some local turkey festival thing

I'm going to have to make do with a lulz-cube-tray - and when it fills up I can pop it in the freezer and enjoy refreshing mini-lulz with my drinks

It's hard to tell if a lot of this is self-delusion, comedy, or forum meta at it's finest.

 

[Red Anders]

indeed, but equally its against IN GAME law in ED too.... as such IN GAME the consequences should, in the right places, be similar to the consequences in real life.

surely if a player wants to play a "bad guy" then they want to experience the consequences of said bad guy.... no? or do they just want the rush of blapping the victim and then none of the downsides?

Interesting point. Tell me, do you really imagine that real life bad guys want to go to prison, or get shot dead by police officers? I always assumed they wanted to get away unscathed and spend the day rolling around in a pile of hookers and blow.

 

[Arguendo]

No, they actually said the exact opposite of that. Their official response was that the enforcement of rules within the private group was the responsibility of the group leaders themselves and that FD would take no action against players breaking those rules, that was the duty of the group leader.

They also said that once you are kicked and banned from a group, re-entering it with e.g. an alt-account is a considered harassment and a bannable offense.

 

[DefiledDragon]

Well FD do have other courses of action open to them

snip

FD can't redefine griefing. At least, they can't possibly redefine it to meet the definition wielded by the vast majority of those advocating combat logging, because their definition of griefing is simply being attacked, at all, ever, even once. If FD redefined griefing to meet that definition, they may as well remove the guns from the spaceships and call it ETS Space Edition.

I would like to see them implement a technical solution to this issue. I think having your ship remain in the instance for a couple of minutes or so would be sufficient. Not sure about the idea of "lives", but it would be better than what we have now for sure.

 

[Agony_Aunt]

I understand that you are not an employee, but you and others do hold an authoritative position on the official forums. Again, I understand what FDs policy is; I've just never seen a forum where moderators would get involved in debates, let alone make 'observations' in support of one POV or another.

Oh man, you should have seen the server i dev'd, moederated, and later admined. I was at the forefront of debates. Most mods would get involved in discussions, but i think it was just about the most active debater.

If anything, i think it would be great if the devs themsevles would get involved in the debates as well. At least it would solidify the devs opinions on certain topics. How much do they really care about PvP, combat logging, piracy, exploration, mining, etc?

 

[DefiledDragon]

The universe allows you to go and beat the crap out of any granny you please. The police would likely want to talk to you if you decided to use the opportunity, but I suspect that you wouldn't want to anyway.

The current controversy would suggest that the second part of your proposition is contentious at best.

Basically, there's nowhere near enough "why" in E:D. Give people a bloody reason, and the combustion ends.

Contentious how? The game allows commanders to shoot at other commanders. There is no contention there, that's just how the game is.

- - - Updated - - -

indeed, but equally its against IN GAME law in ED too.... as such IN GAME the consequences should, in the right places, be similar to the consequences in real life.

surely if a player wants to play a "bad guy" then they want to experience the consequences of said bad guy.... no? or do they just want the rush of blapping the victim and then none of the downsides?

Couldn't agree more. I've been a long time advocate of severe penalties for attacking other commanders without (in game) reasons. I believe the penalty for doing so in a high security system should be an immediate and lethal response from the security forces, as it is in Eve Online. In less secure systems, a slower response that can be evaded. In anarchy, well, you're on your own.

- - - Updated - - -

Actually, they are playing the players, not the game. There is a very distinct difference.
Absolutely within the rules of the game as it stands, but let's not kid ourselves about the motivation behind it. Pixels ain't got nothing to do with it, but it's frequently used as a counterpoint from the ones playing the players.

Your point is irrelevant. It's no different than playing counterstrike. There are people behind those pixels too. I know you're going to say "yeah but CS is all about PvP" and you're right, it is, but open play, while not "all about PvP" is a mode of play where PvP is a reality and a distinct possibility. Don't want to get shot in the face with a deagle? Don't play CS:S. Don't want to lose your T9 to a ganker? Don't play open.

- - - Updated - - -

They also said that once you are kicked and banned from a group, re-entering it with e.g. an alt-account is a considered harassment and a bannable offense.

Fair play, I hope they enforced those rules although judging by how they handle combat logging, I very much doubt they did.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Oh man, you should have seen the server i dev'd, moederated, and later admined. I was at the forefront of debates. Most mods would get involved in discussions, but i think it was just about the most active debater.

If anything, i think it would be great if the devs themsevles would get involved in the debates as well. At least it would solidify the devs opinions on certain topics. How much do they really care about PvP, combat logging, piracy, exploration, mining, etc?

We had this same discussion on the Atari CC forums as well a long time ago. And from a practical standpoint it's almost unavoidable to have moderators engage in the debates. Most forum moderators used to be regular users who like discussing the stuff that is discussed on the forum. At a certain point they were asked to be moderators. Now if the condition applied: but you can no longer do the thing you signed up for, then hardly any users would agree to be a moderator.