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

[Bortas]

Can you accept that because of FDevs definition of combat logging that logging out via the in game menu should not be considered combat logging and therefore not punishable?
Can you accept that this is their games design and it's implementation is working exactly as frontier intend it to (in so far as the logging out menu).

Personally I am regarding it as combat logging as well and report every player doing it, simply because I can't tell the difference. Up to the support team to investigate.

Wether this is working as intended is up to debate... IMHO 15 seconds is way too short. If a player starts the countdown the moment the interdiction starts, he will be logged out before the interdictor can even deploy his weapons. To him he will appear like every other combat logger. The timer should be extended to 30, better 60 seconds and the other player should be given a visual indication that the logout-countdown was initiated.

The logout timer is there to allow people to log out when they need to leave, not as a legit way to combat-log. Using it as such is an exploit IMO.

 

[TheDayman]

I like combat logging. It's fun trying to chop down trees while engaging in friendly saw play with your fellow loggers.

 

[excalibus]

Personally I am regarding it as combat logging as well and report every player doing it, simply because I can't tell the difference. Up to the support team to investigate.

Wether this is working as intended is up to debate... IMHO 15 seconds is way too short. If a player starts the countdown the moment the interdiction starts, he will be logged out before the interdictor can even deploy his weapons. To him he will appear like every other combat logger. The timer should be extended to 30, better 60 seconds and the other player should be given a visual indication that the logout-countdown was initiated.

The logout timer is there to allow people to log out when they need to leave, not as a legit way to combat-log. Using it as such is an exploit IMO.

Well given that frontiers view is that logging out this way is not an exploit, they can improve the situation so there is no misunderstanding that the player is logging out legitimately by simply notifying other commanders of the logout using the local chat system (as in a message popping up on the local chat dialog of any commanders in the instance.

At least that way, those logging out correctly would be identifiable and would reduce the unecesarry need to 'report' players who are actually not exploiting. This would also further give backup evidence of those pulling the plug or end tasking as there would be no message in local chat...

Now that might work rather well at also reducing the workload of frontiers staff which might further mean less 'noise' in the 'cheater signals' and might make catching people truely exploiting combat logging stand out more don't you think?

I feel 30 seconds should be more than adequate, more than that would be unacceptable, if I was to logout while in a hostile system during supercruise, within 60 seconds I could easily be interdicted by an NPC and take damage during that time even if I was in the clear when I chose to logout. There really is zero reason for it to be more than 30 seconds.

 

[crushdepth]

I like combat logging. It's fun trying to chop down trees while engaging in friendly saw play with your fellow loggers.

Stop bullying the vegetables. It's unethical.

 

[Kaerakh]

But the rules of the game we all play by allow for exiting the game through the in game menu and is not considered by frontier as being an exploit so why do you 'feel' it is combat logging still? As you said it's FDev's definition that matters.

I'll clarify what I already stated then. I don't think you should be able to simply shut off your game to avoid the consequences of your actions.

I do not think 30 seconds is rediculous at all either, as I meant times above (over) 30 seconds would be getting rediculous IMHO. But how would you penalise the player without them being 'clearly' destroyed if in that logout time it could have been possible for them to escape using high wake etc. I do think if the timer was increased to 30 seconds then high waking would become more of a tactic used due to being about the same time as the logout timer would need while still having some control over your ship to try and evade fire etc. Beyond 30 seconds it would be rediculous because that would also affect normal logouts etc. And the fact people will always need to be able to log out at any time due to reasons beyond just finishing their gaming sessions (your kid has hurt themselves, your spouse needs you then and there, and many other obvious real life reasons)

Honestly, I think that timer should refresh every time you perform or are acted upon by a hostile action. Again, I just don't feel logging out is valid gameplay. It's denying gameplay and removes the very agency from players' interactions that pretty much makes the game what it is. (I've already posted this next part earlier in this thread) The point of having a persistent universe and giving players agency over it is so that your actions have consequence and lasting effect. When you deny a player agency, you deny the game itself. Also, I don't have any sympathy for people that play when they know their time can be interrupted. It is neither my responsibility nor the responsibility of Frontier to make sure you have uninterrupted play time or a stable internet connection. That's what private and solo play are for. [excrement] happens, deal with it.

As an open only player myself, I agree that I have personally not really experienced this problem myself, but I am in no way near the starting systems either when I am in the bubble I have my chosen minor faction home systems which is where I usually operate from. That said from people I have talked with, this is a problem for starter systems and occurs from time to time... So what can be done to reduce the occurances of this happening?

I just got done saying I don't believe second hand accounts are reliable and you cite second hand accounts and ask me what can be done when I just finished telling you that I don't think anything really should be done. I don't think it's as big of a problem as people state it is if I go off of my previous experience with the game. There is also the concept of diminishing returns. Not every problem should or can be fixed.

It's not that complicated on the surface of the question, I do realise it is more complicated due to the way the game modes are implemented at this time. But fighting with your friends against other people, that is what wings are for yes? So the question still remains as to what is wrong with PVP players having a group where they play with their friends against other PVP players / wings / groups? I have not suggested PvP is in desirable for the developers, in fact it is 'emergent' gameplay that is what DB himself has said he looks forward to seeing in the game. I was in no way suggesting PvP is not something intended for open or for the game, my question is a result of all the time the 'PvP Crowd' are telling people who might not always want PvP to go to solo or group

The reason it's complicated is because you're starting to delve into human psychology here. I'm really getting the sense you're not reading my responses because again I already answered this question in my last response. Here it is again so you can review it again.

That's a far more complicated question than you probably realize. The answer is that for the same reason I don't que up against my buddies in World of Tanks, but rather with them against other people. Playing against the same people over and over is boring. The experience is best when you can't predict it. Edit: Something I forgot to add was that if PVP wasn't intended or wanted in open play by Frontier then it wouldn't be allowed to persist. The fact that it's in and remains in means that PVP is desirable gameplay to Frontier.

I agree, not having some weapons is a definite risk and anyone playing without weapons are indeed vulnerable to PC and NPC attacks, however that was not the question, the question was regarding combat capabilities... Would you (for example) interdict an unarmed target, take them down, then pat yourself on the back for a job well done?

If the credit haul was good sure, why wouldn't anyone? If you're trying to paint a pretty picture of the big bad wolf preying on the little piggy then I guess you got me cuff me and turn me into the moral authority thought police. Again, I already answered this. You're choosing not to accept my answers.

I'll answer this question fairly indirectly, why should someone unarmed get a free pass in a PVP environment? Being unprepared is their problem, not mine. I don't que up in Fractured Space and say after the game that loss didn't count because I wasn't ready or I made a mistake. I learn from my mistakes and plan accordingly. A skill that seems to be in desperate short supply on the ED forums.

I'm a self admitted pirate (is this a shameful thing to admit? Maybe Frontier should be ashamed of themselves for advertising piracy on the store page), and this is how I feel everytime I interdict a type 7 in my clipper

https://youtu.be/e_DqV1xdf-Y

Have to admit a giggle there. Keep the Palpatine clips rolling. 8)

Ashamed?
If you act like a real pirate, demanding cargo and let the victim leave if he/she drops what you're requesting... no problem at all.
Are both part of an opposing PP faction or active within a CZ, shoot away!
Any other RP reason and talk first, like for a blockade or anything.. yeah, no problem I guess.
It's the "shoot first, talk never" crowd many have real issues with, me included.

So, you want us to conduct ourselves in your little box? I'd rather not. If I want to disable you first then ask for your cargo, I should be free to do so. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean I shouldn't be able to do it. I don't like it when people fly out unarmed and go whining to the forums about the big mean evil PVPer, but hey people do it. Doesn't mean I think they should be silenced.

 

[sewerratuk]

This is like saying if you choose to go outside, you choose to interact with other people, whether you like the interaction or not. This is very true, actually, but it doesn't excuse poor behavior. If I'm cruising around open in my Sidewinder, and a wing interdicts me in Anacondas and takes me apart, then they're jerks. There's no reason for them to do that. Saying "Well, you were in open, so you agreed to them murdering you"? First, no, not really. Second, whether I'm in open or not, they're still jerks. If you engage in antisocial behavior, you shouldn't be surprised when people get upset about it, even if it's online.

I agree that seal clubbers and gankers/griefers (as in RP psycho murderers killing clean CMDR's) need to face stronger penalties within the game. As a BH the best penalty as far as I'm concerned is bigger bounties and the ability for me to track their location.
That being said, whatever the penalties you will still get them and Open is where they hang out, so you need to be prepared for them if you choose to play in Open and by prepared I don't mean pull out the network cable.

 

[DigiQuartz]

Taking your ridiculous RL comparison to an equally ridiculous conclusion, what would you do if you were set on by 4 people out on the street? Log out of your life or maybe perhaps put some effort in to make sure you minimise the risk to your good self?

I don't combat log, in either case.

 

[Abomination]

So, you want us to conduct ourselves in your little box? I'd rather not. If I want to disable you first then ask for your cargo, I should be free to do so. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean I shouldn't be able to do it. I don't like it when people fly out unarmed and go whining to the forums about the big mean evil PVPer, but hey people do it. Doesn't mean I think they should be silenced.

I'm talking about players who shoot to kill without any reason and without giving any comms.
Just give players a chance to know you are a real pirate and not one of those trigger happy psycho's without any communicative skills.

 

[Pluvialis]

You just submit to the interdiction, then your FSD cooldown is 10secs or less, boost boost boost and high wake out thus avoiding mass locked. I mean it's not like this solution hasn't been mentioned 1000's of times before or 2 mins of research can't provide the answer? It's just yours and other players laziness.

Hang on a minute.

Yes, that's been mentioned a lot before, and it's something I used to do back when I played Open.

And I was called out on it and told it was called 'submit-hopping', and was an exploit and an underhanded tactic.

So which is it? The obvious solution which means we should stop whining about being interdicted, or a low-down, scummy way to cheat our PVP cousins out of their hard-earned kills?

 

[Siobhan]

Taking your ridiculous RL comparison to an equally ridiculous conclusion, what would you do if you were set on by 4 people out on the street? Log out of your life or maybe perhaps put some effort in to make sure you minimise the risk to your good self?

In RL, the 4 people once caught will find themselves taking a time-out in a prison, depending on their lawyers.
Perhaps what you are trying to say is that people who interdict traders should be gives, say a month's ban from the game?

 

[EddyRockSteady]

And I was called out on it and told it was called 'submit-hopping', and was an exploit and an underhanded tactic.

ROFL

Whoever told you that was speaking Bovine Poo-Poo

Lol, whats next: Wake-hopping?

 

[Iain L]

I was called out on it and told it was called 'submit-hopping'

I rather get the impression that the person who said that would have had an excuse for why you were acting poorly in any situation that didn't involve sitting there compliantly while they blew up your ship. High-waking is a perfectly legit tactic according to Frontier, just like waiting 15 seconds is, and no argument from a would-be ganker is going to stop that. Just as no argument from a potential victim of ganking will persuade them that blowing up defenceless ships is behaving in an ungentlemanly manner.

 

[Jockey79]

Hang on a minute.

Yes, that's been mentioned a lot before, and it's something I used to do back when I played Open.

And I was called out on it and told it was called 'submit-hopping', and was an exploit and an underhanded tactic.

So which is it? The obvious solution which means we should stop whining about being interdicted, or a low-down, scummy way to cheat our PVP cousins out of their hard-earned kills?

It is a legit way to avoid a fight.
FD know all about submit/ high wake - they even tweaked the timer on it a while back.

Those who whine about it have not figured out how to prevent a ship from escaping or never seen a wake scanner that allows them to follow.
But you're perfectly fine doing it.

 

[{SAS}Stalker]

In RL, the 4 people once caught will find themselves taking a time-out in a prison, depending on their lawyers.
Perhaps what you are trying to say is that people who interdict traders should be gives, say a month's ban from the game?

No what I'm trying to say (as you well know) is that RL comparisons don't work with games.

firstly I have not read the entire thread but have skimmed through some of it and read other parts of it...

I would like to ask the PVP centric community to clarify something for me...

Q1. Do you consider logging of via the in game menu 'combat logging' and if so why?
Personally no, if FD consider it ok then there's nothing else that really matters.

Q2. Beyond a ridiculous suggestion of either removing the logoff option during combat or extending it to times above 30 seconds what would you propose FDev do to disincentivise logging out though the in game menu during combat?
As someone who has played 99% of his time in open since the beginning of the game I don't believe that there is sufficient risk in open to warrant FD doing anything other than taking a hard stance against Disco C.Loggers. I'm happy with highly populated areas that are controlled by major factions etc to have a faster, more adequate security response but that's from an immersion sense rather than anything

Q3. What would you suggest FDev do to reduce the number of 'griefer / noob killer' types of players?
I personally really think this is a golden opportunity to provide content to the game. There is a perceived group of players who target new players in swinders and a significant other group of people that enjoy PvP. I would like to see rogue players appear on minor faction mission boards where players can choose to hunt them and their position is updated in the mission description when ever they dock or are seen. Reward for this would be more faction influence than credit based to reduce the risk of people cashing in bounties to friends etc and bounties should be tied to the ship also to prevent suicidewinder.

Q4. A lot of PVP players seem to state that OPEN is PVP and that people seeking PVE should go to private group or solo mode, why is there a problem with PVP players going to a a private group?
A rather strange question. The game is sandbox which by definition means you make your own game from within the rules of the game. It stands to reason that unless its specifically outlined by the devs that what you are doing is cheating / exploiting then you are free to do what you want. That is what open is for and you should enter that mode knowing that your interactions with other humans could be both negative or positive.

If the player cant accept that then that is what the other modes are for, that said private and solo play should still (and indeed is required to) abide by the game rules. You should not for example have a stated rule that permits exploiting or cheating within a private group and group membership remains the responsibility of the group owner. I do however think that the mobius group has grown to large for one person to control and think that FD need to help those people out with an official pve group.

Q5. Do PvP players want interactions with other PvP players or do they want to be able to PvP anyone they choose weather or not the 'target' is even combat capable?
For me personally it entirely depends on the situation. We have in the past declared war on some groups and then anyone in that group regardless of ship is valid, similarly if I was involved with PP then any hostile is valid but I would only bother if they were either undermining or in a system that would earn me merits. All that aside If I saw some random whilst traveling etc they would be more likely to get an o7 than interdicted.

Answers in red

 

[Kaerakh]

No what I'm trying to say (as you well know) is that RL comparisons don't work with games.

They really don't get it. I tried the same thing with Mexican food.

 

[MottiKhan]

ROFL

Whoever told you that was speaking Bovine Poo-Poo

Lol, whats next: Wake-hopping?

LOL! Bovine Poo-Poo. I'll have to remember that one.

 

[Moardak]

Every single one of you piracy sympathizers completely misses the point each time you compare open play to real life or whatever else. The point is piracy and other sorts of crime driven behavior is illegal in real life and in ED. The problem is there's almost nothing of consequence currently in ED to punish these crimes. The current bounty system is woefully inadequate. Being in a high security system should actually mean something. It shouldn't mean anyone in a bigger ship or bigger wing can murder you at will and get away with it without a single consequence. Yes, piracy and other crimes should be allowed in the game. But they should have real consequences, just like actual crimes do. Any of you that like to engage in criminal behavior in ED and cry about your victims not being willing to "accept the consequences", yet turn a complete blind eye to the fact that your crimes have no real consequences are just being hypocritical chickens.

 

[Kaerakh]

Every single one of you piracy sympathizers completely misses the point each time you compare open play to real life or whatever else. The point is piracy and other sorts of crime driven behavior is illegal in real life and in ED. The problem is there's almost nothing of consequence currently in ED to punish these crimes.

In your opinion. It's not that I miss the point I just think you're wrong, something I've already stated. Since we've had this conversation already, I'll spare you and everyone else from reiterating it.

The current bounty system is woefully inadequate.

Something I agree with, but this isn't the bounty hunting thread it's the combat logging thread.

Being in a high security system should actually mean something. It shouldn't mean anyone in a bigger ship or bigger wing can murder you at will and get away with it without a single consequence.

I mostly agree, but, again, not the thread to discuss this.

Yes, piracy and other crimes should be allowed in the game. But they should have real consequences, just like actual crimes do.

I don't play a game to experience a 20 year sentence.

Any of you that like to engage in criminal behavior in ED and cry about your victims not being willing to "accept the consequences", yet turn a complete blind eye to the fact that your crimes have no real consequences are just being hypocritical chickens.

Please cry some more, two wrongs don't make a right.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=urcqQC02YbY

If you think I've been drawing analogies for the sake of comparing things to real life then you've completely missed the point of them I make analogies to help you understand my position. Not to say it should be like real life. The only one saying it should be like real life is you, and I fundamentally disagree with that.

 

[Banana's_Are_Good_For_You]

Every single one of you piracy sympathizers completely misses the point each time you compare open play to real life or whatever else. The point is piracy and other sorts of crime driven behavior is illegal in real life and in ED. The problem is there's almost nothing of consequence currently in ED to punish these crimes. The current bounty system is woefully inadequate. Being in a high security system should actually mean something. It shouldn't mean anyone in a bigger ship or bigger wing can murder you at will and get away with it without a single consequence. Yes, piracy and other crimes should be allowed in the game. But they should have real consequences, just like actual crimes do. Any of you that like to engage in criminal behavior in ED and cry about your victims not being willing to "accept the consequences", yet turn a complete blind eye to the fact that your crimes have no real consequences are just being hypocritical chickens.

I generally agree with this but I would also like there to be options, for say a minor faction, to boost their security by having to do things, like missions and mini cg's that would involve cleaning the system of undesirables and such.
Because your minor faction resides in a system, means you should have to work for the best results, depending on how you want your system to run.
I don't know why there are not interdicting Police forces in high-security systems to make sure there are no illegal activities. Sure, it may annoy legit players a little but which do you want....a mild inconvenience or to be attacked constantly because of no consequences for the attacker?
This can work in systems without a minor player faction as well.

There are already ways in the BGS to destabilize a system but I don't know if any directly affect the security level but let's just suggest the actions of a potential pirate:

If you successfully smuggled goods into a system as a mean to destabilize it then that would affect the system security. The more smuggled, the lower the security because they would be distracted by crazed Onionhead party people, others running around with guns, narcotics affecting the workforce and productivity of the system or whatever...
On the flip side, positive legit missions restore the balance.

If unchallenged, and once that drops, then the Pirate, or group of pirates have their chance. This would make the game constantly change and for traders to have to constantly check if the system they are delivering to is safe, or not.
In this way, it comes down to the actions of the players and how much attention they are paying to the game as to how hard or easy it is or becomes.
Sometimes you may even have to fight for what you want if it's that valuable to a player, as in a nice trade run or something else.

 

[Mohrgan]

Players can't even identify Combat Logging. Add to that all of the self righteous players deciding to create their own definition of Combat Logging, and all you get is an over burdened Customer Service Dept. sifting through overwrought complaints of nothing against the rules. Combat Logging is just like Griefing. It rarely happens, yet it has the ability to twist undies into an unlock-able knot.

Combat Logging is nothing more than an inconvenience. Learn to move on. It's here to stay, because it's just a specter anyway. You can make believe you are flying a star ship, try imagining that when an opponent CL's, you won.