Combat Loggers... how many are there!!!! What kind of punishment do they receive and when?

[Jackboot]

This thread is probably going to be closed for being off topic if we go too far down the "what is griefing" road. There are already huge threads on the forums about that very topic. We won't define it here, but regardless of that logging is not about griefing, or even PvP.

This thread is about combat logging. Its poorly named because its also used to avoid scans when your are smuggling and as a general way to avoid damage. FD has to find a way to fix it and ABSOLUTELY MUST label it as a cheat or people would just bind it to a hotkey and nobody in game would ever lose a ship ever again. Not just in PvP, but in solo, or group, or anywhere else. Also keep in mind its not hard to create a script to run to kill the process when your hull reaches 5% or any other arbitrary number. If this is allowed nobody ever loses another ship EVER. They are literally trying to prevent a God mode invincibility cheat from running. Its not just some minor inconvenience for wings of anacondas attacking new players in sidewinders like the people who seem to think this is ok behavior are presenting it. Its a big deal and deserves all the uproar it gets. Hopefully there is something in the works they have eventually planned besides "report players you see doing it" because that isn't going to work in the long run.

 

[shambles1980]

Perhaps not really griefing, but for the purposes of the galaxy wide "player killer" tag that I would like to see implemented in game, it should still apply. If you kill another player that isn't "wanted", "enemy" or also "player killer", then you get the "player killer" tag applied.

dont forget power play..

 

[Roland2]

dont forget power play..

I don't do power play, but assumed they would fall under "enemy".

As for this thread being closed for off topic, I wouldn't consider that a bad thing.

 

[Jenner]

This thread is probably going to be closed for being off topic if we go too far down the "what is griefing" road. There are already huge threads on the forums about that very topic. We won't define it here, but regardless of that logging is not about griefing, or even PvP.

Well said.

Let's get back to the topic of combat logging, folks, not defining 'griefing'. Thanks.

 

[EddyRockSteady]

ok. soo
best way to fix it so people dont all cry about it..
You combat log and you lose 90% of the hull you had remaining, and 90% of all module health.
modules will end up at 0% if you combat log twice before repairing. this counts for npcs as well.
should drive up repair prices on ships, and leave repete offenders stuck in the black..

This, coupled with -

If you shoot a clean CMDR you immediately forfeit shields and 90% of your hull. You keep on shooting and you spawn a 6-ship Anaconda security force, who immediately dispense swift justice by sending you straight to hell, or the rebuy screen, whatever you prefer to call it.

That should work well.

 

[Moardak]

Jackboot, my point wasn't to derail this thread about "combat logging". I think that is a real issue and it needs a real fix. My point is that Frontier also needs to fix some of the issues that drive people to combat log, and the biggest of that is griefers. It's completely unfair to expect the targets of griefers to face such high consequences for dying when griefers themselves face almost no consequences for doing the killing.

 

[Kaerakh]

I play open and I pay my insurance. Clearly you dislike me trying to be reasonable on the behalf of certain combat loggers.

Clearly we need to characterize me as a bad person rather than engage the ideas stated.

I agree with part of what you said: "The point of online play is to interact with other players and have meaningful gameplay" however "with consequences because of it." I fully disagree with. You may require "consequences", but that doesn't make it a requirement. Just ask all the COD, Battlefront, Warframe, ESO, STO players doing PvP if they are playing online or not.

Consequences are not always directly negative. I group up with people in Warframe and the consequence of that decision is that the gameplay is generally easier. I think you're hung up on the negative stigma attached to the word consequence rather than its contextual meaning here. I would use Spore as an example of a game without consequence the online(or lack there of) aspect of Spore dumbs down and automates interaction so much that it makes it meaningless. if I encounter someone else's civilization I might think it looks cool at first, but then I realize that it has the same bland uninteresting AI behind it with no interestingly varied behavior.

Kaerakh, I didn't say you're a griefer. I have no idea how you play.

That's nice I don't really care how you play either. Can we get back to the discussion? I don't really feel like getting caught up in he said she said.

It just sounds like you're supporting a player's right to grief without any real consequences.

Quote me.

I suggest some improved consequences for this sort of behavior, and you automatically dismiss them with an unsupported "oh that will never work so don't even try it".

Because it hasn't. For the precise reasons already stated in this thread by other people. I just didn't feel like reinventing the wheel and posting the same information twice.

Again, you go on about consequences. And I don't disagree with you. Traders should have consequences for doing trade runs. And they DO have consequences for it, right now, in the game, as it is. It's in the form of other players playing the pirate role, because that's basically an acceptable role to play if you like griefing.

Again with that name calling man. You gotta work on that.

The problem is that these pirate players have almost NO consequences whatsoever in game, right now, as it is. You really don't see the problem with this? Why should the consequences for the traders be so much higher than the consequences for the pirates?

Why should it be on Frontier and not the pilots to create them? I really don't see a problem with the current system in that regard because if joe-bob decides to fly out unescorted in space that has people that might intend him harm then that's on him for making a poor risk vs reward analysis. Not on me for taking advantage of his poor choices. If I made a mistake in League of Legends and then after the fact told Riot, hey he attacked me when I wasn't ready, please remove that game from my record. I'd be laughed off their forums and rightly so.

ok. soo
best way to fix it so people dont all cry about it..
You combat log and you lose 90% of the hull you had remaining, and 90% of all module health.
modules will end up at 0% if you combat log twice before repairing. this counts for npcs as well.
should drive up repair prices on ships, and leave repete offenders stuck in the black..

Again not the fix i would want but one that you cant say "ooh but i have bad internet"

You actually bring up something I really wanted to get to, but I just didn't have a way of doing so without being way off topic. It is not the game developer's job to ensure you have a stable or modern internet connection. That doesn't mean they can't try to be accommodating, but it doesn't mean that they have to cater to you playing from a farm house in Nebraska, or from deep in the Democratic Republic of the Congo.

 

[Jackboot]

Jackboot, my point wasn't to derail this thread about "combat logging". I think that is a real issue and it needs a real fix. My point is that Frontier also needs to fix some of the issues that drive people to combat log, and the biggest of that is griefers. It's completely unfair to expect the targets of griefers to face such high consequences for dying when griefers themselves face almost no consequences for doing the killing.

All of the reasons that you claim drive people to choose to use cheats to avoid credit loss can be fixed by choosing solo or group at login. If you chose to play in open you should accept the fact that you will be playing with other players that will sometimes be hostile to you for whatever reason, be it piracy or whatever else. God mode invincibility cheats have no place and are inexcusable when you can just avoid all the mean people being mean to you by not playing with the rest of us in open.

This, coupled with -

If you shoot a clean CMDR you immediately forfeit shields and 90% of your hull. You keep on shooting and you spawn a 6-ship Anaconda security force, who immediately dispense swift justice by sending you straight to hell, or the rebuy screen, whatever you prefer to call it.

That should work well.

This is a ridiculous suggestion that would make all piracy impossible.

 

[Asp Explorer]

Just make anyone who FD have determined perform a Combat Log play QCQ for 15 minutes at their next log-in

 

[Kaerakh]

Just make anyone who FD have determined perform a Combat Log play QCQ for 15 minutes at their next log-in

I'll be honest, I giggled a little bit.

 

[Moardak]

Why should it be on Frontier and not the pilots to create them? I really don't see a problem with the current system in that regard because if joe-bob decides to fly out unescorted in space that has people that might intend him harm than that's on him for making a poor risk vs reward analysis. Not on me for taking advantage of his poor choices. If I made a mistake in League of Legends and then after the fact told Riot, hey he attacked me when I wasn't ready, please remove that game from my record. I'd be laughed off their forums and rightly so.

This is a fair question. It should be up to Frontier to balance the scales because it's Frontier's game mechanics that cause the imbalance in the first place. Traders trade to make credits, not because that's truly what they enjoy doing in the game. It's a means to an end. They need to make credits so then they can use those credits to go do what they really enjoy doing. In order to make trading profitable, you're pretty much forced to do it alone. If you manage to find another combat equipped player willing to fly trade routes with you all day to protect you, well that's good for you, but that isn't going to happen all that much unless you pay them a substantial sum. Basically what I'm saying is that paying for trade route protection isn't economically feasible with the current game mechanics. Now lets contrast this with players that play the pirate role. Piracy is a terrible way to make money in this game, which basically means almost no one does it to really make money, they do it because they like to do it. The pirates are already playing the part of the game they like to do, instead of playing to make credits. This means they don't have to worry about any economic consequences, of which there really aren't any anyway. It's the current game mechanics that cause this imbalance in consequences, and that requires changes to the game mechanics to balance it out.

 

[{SAS}Stalker]

This is a ridiculous suggestion that would make all piracy impossible.

He's trolling the tread Jackboot because he was proven wrong.

 

[Moardak]

All of the reasons that you claim drive people to choose to use cheats to avoid credit loss can be fixed by choosing solo or group at login. If you chose to play in open you should accept the fact that you will be playing with other players that will sometimes be hostile to you for whatever reason, be it piracy or whatever else. God mode invincibility cheats have no place and are inexcusable when you can just avoid all the mean people being mean to you by not playing with the rest of us in open.

Jackboot, I agree with you.. except that you fail to acknowledge the severe lack of consequences for players that engage in griefing others. Players shouldn't be forced to play in private just to avoid griefers that can grief all day long without any consequences. There's plenty of reasons why players would want to play in open that don't involve wanting to PvP. Given that, yes they should prepare to face the consequences of playing in open from players that do want to PvP them. The problem is that there's currently no consequences for players that engage in griefing.

 

[Kaerakh]

This is a fair question. It should be up to Frontier to balance the scales because it's Frontier's game mechanics that cause the imbalance in the first place.

If you're talking about how trade ships are ineffectual in combat then that's the point.

Traders trade to make credits, not because that's truly what they enjoy doing in the game. It's a means to an end. They need to make credits so then they can use those credits to go do what they really enjoy doing.

That's nice, I'll file that under more things that I already know from when I played Freelancer(Red Hessians for life bro).

In order to make trading profitable, you're pretty much forced to do it alone.

You are? I don't remember the undock check that checked for if you had a tradeship and no friends.

If you manage to find another combat equipped player willing to fly trade routes with you all day to protect you, well that's good for you, but that isn't going to happen all that much unless you pay them a substantial sum.

Yeah, which is probably why Frontier made trading(at least when I last played(before all this smuggling stuff)) the most profitable way to earn credits in the game.

Basically what I'm saying is that paying for trade route protection isn't economically feasible with the current game mechanics.

I'd be willing to concede that. I have no idea what the meta is currently.

Now lets contrast this with players that play the pirate role. Piracy is a terrible way to make money in this game, which basically means almost no one does it to really make money, they do it because they like to do it.

Shocker

The pirates are already playing the part of the game they like to do, instead of playing to make credits. This means they don't have to worry about any economic consequences, of which there really aren't any anyway. It's the current game mechanics that cause this imbalance in consequences, and that requires changes to the game mechanics to balance it out.

Maybe, but I don't think any of your suggestions so far are valid options.

 

[Moardak]

Maybe, but I don't think any of your suggestions so far are valid options.

Ok how bout this? If you kill a "clean" player, you get marked as "player killer" (granted this needs a much better name). While in this "player killer" state it acts much like "wanted" except your bounty is bigger and it's galaxy wide, lets say it lasts for a week. Then we add one more important detail. If you die while tagged as "player killer", regardless of what ship you die in, your respawn cost is the cost of your ship insurance PLUS the ship insurance and cargo cost of every clean player you killed.

 

[Kaerakh]

Ok how bout this? If you kill a "clean" player, you get marked as "player killer" (granted this needs a much better name). While in this "player killer" state it acts much like "wanted" except your bounty is bigger and it's galaxy wide, lets say it lasts for a week. Then we add one more important detail. If you die while tagged as "player killer", regardless of what ship you die in, your respawn cost is the cost of your ship insurance PLUS the ship insurance and cargo cost of every clean player you killed.

While I don't think your idea would make it to a live build I think it could be improved with a reduction to duration(half an hour to an hour is far more reasonable), and it should be confined to the jurisdiction of the faction you committed the infraction in(otherwise this would be far too meta), but I disagree with the cost of the cargo and the ship insurance being tagged on to respawn costs. I would instead just tag a fine onto the player that scales off of how severe the faction considered the case to be.


Edit: This is also very much off topic.

 

[Moardak]

While I don't think your idea would make it to a live build I think it could be improved with a reduction to duration(half an hour to an hour is far more reasonable), and it should be confined to the jurisdiction of the faction you committed the infraction in(otherwise this would be far too meta), but I disagree with the cost of the cargo and the ship insurance being tagged on to respawn costs. I would instead just tag a fine onto the player that scales off of how severe the faction considered the case to be.

Confining to major faction would be ok with me. But just to system faction would be almost pointless. All any pirate would have to do is kill a few people then move onto the next system, again avoiding all consequences. A short time duration of only an hour or so results in the same thing. Super easy to avoid all consequences. Maybe making the tagged on fine dependent on how severe the faction considered it to be is a bit more in line with keeping things with the story, but this fine should be substantial in most cases. It must be substantial enough to compete with all the rebuy and lost cargo costs of the clean players that were killed, otherwise it would defeat the purpose of trying to balance out the consequences.

It's really sounding to me like you really don't want any real not easily avoidable consequences to be imposed on pirates.

 

[Kaerakh]

Confining to major faction would be ok with me. But just to system faction would be almost pointless. All any pirate would have to do is kill a few people then move onto the next system, again avoiding all consequences.

That's what I meant sorry about not clarifying that.

A short time duration of only an hour or so results in the same thing. Super easy to avoid all consequences. Maybe making the tagged on fine dependent on how severe the faction considered it to be is a bit more in line with keeping things with the story, but this fine should be substantial in most cases. It must be substantial enough to compete with all the rebuy and lost cargo costs of the clean players that were killed, otherwise it would defeat the purpose of trying to balance out the consequences.

Then maybe you're attacking the problem from the wrong end. A week is far too heavy handed, but maybe an hour of being chased by up to 4-5 security vessels in a wing would be better(just as an idea). This is an opportunity to have an event made out of this for the player. Being punitive for the sake of being punitive is just poor game design. I am in favor of the fine being a substantial amount, but I don't think a viper pilot should be paying off half a billion credits for sinking someone's anaconda.

It's really sounding to me like you really don't want any real not easily avoidable consequences to be imposed on pirates.

Oh, there comes that strawman. Sounds like to me you're just playing nice with me to say, "Aha! See gotchya!"
Oh wait, we just did the same thing to each other. lel

 

[Moardak]

I guess I would rather see them overdo the piracy consequences rather than under. As has already been mentioned, players tend to be drawn to this negative side of PvP regardless, because many find it fun. So even with severe consequences people would still be drawn to it. Heck it might even make it more fun for some. Having some real consequences for crimes makes it way more fun to get away with it. At least it should for pirates that aren't actually just complete chickens who only go for consequence free easy prey.

 

[Kaerakh]

I guess I would rather see them overdo the piracy consequences rather than under. As has already been mentioned, players tend to be drawn to this negative side of PvP regardless, because many find it fun. So even with severe consequences people would still be drawn to it. Heck it might even make it more fun for some. Having some real consequences for crimes makes it way more fun to get away with it. At least it should for pirates that aren't actually just complete chickens who only go for consequence free easy prey.

Miyazaki Hayao had an excellent line in one of his movies, “would you prefer a world with the pyramids or a world without?” The meaning of that line is to convey to the audience that in order for something to be great and awe inspiring you must have things that are the opposite of that to contrast it. Just because you find something not fun doesn't mean that other people won't. I don't want to play a game where I have to say, "This is why we can't have nice things." And the thing is that Frontier already provides players with all the tools players need to disengage from PVP with the private and solo play options.

Just because something is detestable to you doesn't mean it shouldn't be allowed. I think it's detestable that people in the world are more concerned with how something feels these days rather than what actually is, but would I want their right to speech taken away? No, saying who gets to speak and who doesn't is the death of progressive discourse.

Or more succinctly put, don't throw the baby out with the bath water.

So, how does that spiel relate to the current topic? Well, just because one guy shoots up some sidewinders(which I know isn't quite what you said) in the starting system, that shouldn't mean that we have to design the entire PVP system around that scenario.