An investigation into Frontier's actions on Combat Logging
- Thread starter ryan_m
- Start date
One hit? Not unless the FDL uses itself as the weapon or has 5 PACs strapped onto it. Just gotta be very quick on the chaff once you start getting hit. And no you don't need to be an ace to outmanuver an FDL. If you don't need to be an ace to outmanuver a Python you don't need to be ace to outmanuver an FDL. But anyway, skill wasn't brought up in the post I replied to so I didn't factor it in.
"exploit" yes
"bannable offense" no
The link you provide doesnt state anything about "banning". Frontier states that they are going to take appropriate actions in the future but nothing else.
My own stance on the whole subject (doesnt really affects me as I dont combat log) is that if Frontier doesnt want something to happen in their own game they need to take steps to enforce their ruling via ingame mechanics. Select cases where ingame mechanics get "hacked" need to be prosecuted and punished of course but everything else is handled "by the game".
Asking us to not do "stuff" because they lack the infrastructure or foundation to enforce it NOW and threatening to hand out punishment LATER doesnt really sit well with me. It doesnt make me want to do these things out of spite or anything but this lack was THEIR responsebility. They either rush to fix it (patch) or sit back and reap the reward. As long as they dont do this warning a mandatory "I agree" pop-up when logging in acting on this forum post is highly unethical from a judicial point of view. Usually governments would identify and fix certain loopholes making a statement that doing these particular things is forbidden by punishment FROM NOW ON, not go on and hunt down 90 year old grandfathers and drag them to prison for doing stuf 50 years ago.
"bannable offense" no
The link you provide doesnt state anything about "banning". Frontier states that they are going to take appropriate actions in the future but nothing else.
My own stance on the whole subject (doesnt really affects me as I dont combat log) is that if Frontier doesnt want something to happen in their own game they need to take steps to enforce their ruling via ingame mechanics. Select cases where ingame mechanics get "hacked" need to be prosecuted and punished of course but everything else is handled "by the game".
Asking us to not do "stuff" because they lack the infrastructure or foundation to enforce it NOW and threatening to hand out punishment LATER doesnt really sit well with me. It doesnt make me want to do these things out of spite or anything but this lack was THEIR responsebility. They either rush to fix it (patch) or sit back and reap the reward. As long as they dont do this warning a mandatory "I agree" pop-up when logging in acting on this forum post is highly unethical from a judicial point of view. Usually governments would identify and fix certain loopholes making a statement that doing these particular things is forbidden by punishment FROM NOW ON, not go on and hunt down 90 year old grandfathers and drag them to prison for doing stuf 50 years ago.
Last edited:
I admit, i never tried to outmanoeuvred a standard FLD with a stock Sidewinder. Also this isn't the most important example. What about less manoeuvrable ships? T-6/7/9? AspE? I'd say that these are the most unbalanced scenarios.
I can't see the vote numbers at all, just the up and down arrows so have to rely on what it puts at the top - maybe because i'm not a member. brevity can be a pita, i figured top meant 'from the top' or most interacted with and best was what folk had voted best
Engineered FDL with dd5s goes over 600 m/s. Add to that some level five weapons and effect? A single pass is enough to kill any sidey a few times over.
Last edited:
Typo mate, surely? 'Over 500 m/s'
But yeah, an even vaguely well-piloted fully RNGineered FdL will kill many types of non-engineered ship before they can wake. Heck, even my iCourier can do it.
The old days of telling players they could always escape if they knew what they were doing are long gone.
And solving THIS problem would be another approach to deal with CL. Perfect scenario: Introduce a C&P system and bring mechanics that allow players to escape.
The latter maybe not by the push of the button, maybe requiring to 'GID GUD' or whatever, but just bring the means for a Trader vs PK being survivable for the Trader.
The problem with that is that FD have just introduced another mechnic to stop people escaping - Yuri Grom's FSD disruptor.
Last edited:
I know, and i was completely perplex when they announced it.
Yep, and I used it last night to destroy an enemy Cmdr in a freighter, me in a tiny ship without mass lock. Admittedly he unwisely fought the interdiction so the outcome may have been the same anyway - but I think it removed his chance of escape even if he'd submitted.
Personally, as an in game, solution, I would be supportive of defensive measures which (although nothing like as strong as a PvE, immortality mode) are incompatible with being taken advantage of by aggressors ...
... such as:
A. Defensive modules that fit in a ship's hardpoints and provide forms of protection that are very demanding of power and prevent the ship deploying hardpoints. Basically, you sacrifice teeth for turtle shell.
B. Defensive modules that are large (for large trade ships) and which suck in so much power that the ship could not fight effectively with them, but can still freight.
C. [Insert your idea here]
D. Open mode should be renamed "Sullon Zek" mode... Then we just need to wait for Fansy to show up and save the Good Team!
C. Proper friend-or-foe determination by the game - who interdicted whom, and/or who fired the first shot.
Then give freighters only (determined by ship class and loadout, perhaps) something like the ion cannon from Star Wars - no permanent damage to systems, but it disrupts weapons.
Perhaps such a weapon could, in some way, only work with ships that are set up for hauling.
That said, the problem with the idea is wings. It would also effectively destroy piracy as a career (not that it currently makes much sense as one anyway, but that's another discussion.)
Hello,
give the truckers two frightening turrets (which can be mounted only by the big freighters and no ship else)
Much more Utility Mountings, because a T9 has just 4 of them. They should be able to mount five or six Point Defences, against missiles/torpedoes and at least a Chaff and an ECM.
give the truckers two frightening turrets (which can be mounted only by the big freighters and no ship else)
Much more Utility Mountings, because a T9 has just 4 of them. They should be able to mount five or six Point Defences, against missiles/torpedoes and at least a Chaff and an ECM.
If someone Combat Logs Once or twice..yeah ok..
But you'll find the repeated offenders are teh annoying ones; thus..
Surely ED can detect this using some sort of behavioural analysis of a CMDRs 'logging off' antics.. A bit liek most security systems nowadays dont actually look for a specific exploit, but they look for the changes in behaviour etc.
But you'll find the repeated offenders are teh annoying ones; thus..
Surely ED can detect this using some sort of behavioural analysis of a CMDRs 'logging off' antics.. A bit liek most security systems nowadays dont actually look for a specific exploit, but they look for the changes in behaviour etc.
Sole Hunter
Banned
Not all of us are banned from the official forums, most of us just don't want or care enough to post. We have 1-4 active poster from SDC on the official forums and that's about it. Sundae posts are more classy, rinzler & harry posts are more neutral/passive and phil/fondlemaid/me posts are more aggressive/propaganda'ish. It's also a good reflection of the way we play the game.
Like Sundae said, SDC is more about actions than words.
Last edited:
Good write up but, can you 100% guarantee that some one deliberately disconnected or bad internet.
If its not 100% then you can't ban anyone.
If its not 100% then you can't ban anyone.
Last edited:
Same as you can't 100% guarantee that the "winning" player didn't firewall out the "loser" when shields dropped and so make it appear that the "loser" combat logged.
Yeah... and, how does pulling the cable vs using the 15s cooldown in the Menu look from the other side; ie the attacker? Is there a visual indication between the two?
I would say yes, because on a clean logout a marker can be set and again at the end of the 15 secs so a record of a good logout.
This could be feed back to the Attacker.
But instant disconnect could be any of the following to name a few.
Bad ISP.
Unplug cable.
Power failure of the PC.
DOS attack from another player ( as mentioned above ).
Power off the PC Manually.
All the above could result in FD seeing an instant loss but how can they 100% say what actually happened.
No one can be banned because the only one who truly knows is the person in-front of the computer.
Unless they are really stupid and admit too it...
btw, I am all for banning players who do like this but you can't assume someone is guilty before knowing the whole facts.
Last edited: