OK I suppose that is fair enough if both players are looking for a fight but what about when it's not even remotely a contest or a wanted activity?
i.e. a super tanked combat machine attacking a freighter
Combat logging no longer an exploit? * trigger warning *
- Thread starter bladebss
- Start date
OK I suppose that is fair enough if both players are looking for a fight but what about when it's not even remotely a contest or a wanted activity?
i.e. a super tanked combat machine attacking a freighter
If everyone behaved the same way this thread and others like it wouldn't exist.
Because the gameplay involved is entertainment itself, even if it features a setback for one's character. In any given hostile encounter, there are multiple outcomes, and for me, the only negative one's feature cheating and/or blatantly context defying behavior.
Disparity of consequence is situational, and there is often potential for reversal, or revenge.
If one is willingly playing a game, or a mode of a game, that allows these things to occur, the assumption has to be that the potential for these interactions is desirable. I certainly would not be playing this game if my CMDR was never, or even infrequently, the underdog, or if I couldn't still be outmatched while giving my absolute best.
As the potential for loss has fallen, so has my enjoyment of the game. I will not play a character who does less than their best (even if I occasionally sandbag a bit), or who doesn't take their safety at least somewhat seriously, but my entertainment is also linked to the potential risks involved. It's not fun for me if my character cannot fail.
I opted in to the potential for my CMDR encountering trouble when I clicked Open (and I shouldn't have to do this, but the game presents no non-opt-in PvE threats). I may not be looking for it, I may even find it inconvenient when it occurs, but I will make the most of it and enjoy wherever legitimate gameplay presented takes my character's narrative. It's one of the reasons I never leave Open, excepting technical issues.
I guess that's the nub of it.
Is attacking someone without any possibility of losing the encounter or suffering any form of repercussion a legitimate gameplay activity?
Anything within the word and general intent of the rules is legitimate gameplay, and this would certainly include highly asymmetric encounters.
I'd also argue that there is virtually no way to setup such an encounter in Elite: Dangerous where there is no possibility of suffering repercussions. We're all playing by the same rules (unless we cheat), and if my CMDR shoots down another, there is nothing stopping them or their allies from trying to take advantage of opportunities to shoot down, or otherwise inconvenience, mine. Even if I were the kind of player who was inclined to remove my CMDR from the possibility of direct retaliation, it would not be difficult to find out what my CMDR's general goals are and work against him indirectly.
....meanwhile the multitude of 'real life' people who don't bother with reddit-spacetube-myface and any other social media platform can get away with it* and continue with their lives without even knowing what life destroying things are being discussed by the various groups of social incasts....
At least folks who CL can be social outcasts via shame posts on Reddit
*making the halls of shame voluntary walking spots, Hail the highstreet of reality (and the Pubs when they opens again)
No worries, text conversations are hardly the best for getting your full meaning across. I've been in the same position enough times.My apologies, I WAS thinking of menu logging, not what you have described. In other games, leaving to the menu and exiting is combat logging. Also, upon second reading my attempt at humour looks too much like snarkiness to my eyes - that was not my intent. I meant to give a sly and humorous jibe; nothing more. It didn't really come off like that - sorry.
Even still, with the difference now understood, I stand by my belief that doing so is a legitimate tactic for less-experienced players when ganked - even moreso in fact. Getting out of there by any means necessary - even exploiting the PC or game mechanics - is perfectly fine for a player who could otherwise not possibly survive when facing a ganker who is also using every means necessary to beat a player who already can't win - including PC or game mechanics.
Cheers!
To be honest, I only differentiate because Frontier do. As you say, menu logging is effectively as bad in its intent, however Frontier make the rules so I personally accept that it's going to happen in the game and if there's not a punishment, no point in dwelling on it. With combat logging it certainly seems like there's a warning sent out so Frontier are apparently saying to players who do this that it isn't how they want us to be playing the game.
I suppose the line is always going to be that if someone does get a ban for combat logging and they had only done it because more experienced players (which may be everyone at their stage of the game) said it was OK, potentially would that be worse than just being ganked?
There also the question of why would someone buy a game which advertises adverserial gameplay (ruthless and cutthroat galaxy) where you're going to hit the quit button when adversity appears. This is a game that, for me at least, came with a lot of learning through mistakes and ship rebuys. Removing the consequence of a ship rebuy seems to me to diminish the game as a game and just turns it into a number accumulator.
Well, there's the thing. I believe that clogging by disconnection is an exploit, and therefore I believe FD don't care about it.
As I already said semi-seriously, they have a policy of not allowing discussion of exploits in the forum. So if they saw it as an exploit and also cared about it, this thread would be already gone. Ergo, either they don't see it as an exploit or they think it doesn't matter enough to do anything about.
So I won't do it, but I'll carry on regarding it as a spectator sport.
Rep given for the word "incast".
Yes. The game rules allow it. It is arguably cowardly or at least not much of a challenge, but it is a legitimate way to act in-game. Leaving the game to avoid the consequences of in-game decisions that would otherwise have led to a 'learning opportunity' (eg boosting into an asteroid for a PvE example) is not allowed by the game rules but cannot be prevented by the game.
No worries, text conversations are hardly the best for getting your full meaning across. I've been in the same position enough times.
To be honest, I only differentiate because Frontier do. As you say, menu logging is effectively as bad in its intent, however Frontier make the rules so I personally accept that it's going to happen in the game and if there's not a punishment, no point in dwelling on it. With combat logging it certainly seems like there's a warning sent out so Frontier are apparently saying to players who do this that it isn't how they want us to be playing the game.
I suppose the line is always going to be that if someone does get a ban for combat logging and they had only done it because more experienced players (which may be everyone at their stage of the game) said it was OK, potentially would that be worse than just being ganked?
There also the question of why would someone buy a game which advertises adverserial gameplay (ruthless and cutthroat galaxy) where you're going to hit the quit button when adversity appears. This is a game that, for me at least, came with a lot of learning through mistakes and ship rebuys. Removing the consequence of a ship rebuy seems to me to diminish the game as a game and just turns it into a number accumulator.
While I don't really take issue with what is being said I feel that it could be about the 'timing' of logging, not just the act of logging, suppose a player that regularly plays in Open picks up a mission worth a mint and menu's to Solo to complete it because he/she knows that a powerful adversary is in the vicinity and doesn't want o fight them, that's exactly the same reason for doing it later... only the timepoint is different, it's frowned upon by many that spend their lives doing BGS and such in Open, and often called an exploit, but for PvP reasons it's exactly the same but you just don't know about it, like the Wizard that steps through the dimension door before the Warrior arrives, at least if they 'log' because they're losing you have had 'some' fun.
As Bigmace said earlier "if they log I count it as a win" (might not be the exact words as I didn't look it up but it's about right)
EDIT Bigmaec, sorry
Last edited:
Do they though?
If we consider unplugging an exploit, why do we not view Ganking/Griefing, if that's the right term, as bullying?
You need to separate the intention of the combat to do that, the game allows Piracy but doesn't dictate how to do it, it allows Murder, so a Murderhobo has as much legitimacy as does a Trader, as we can't differentiate the griefer from the roleplayer it's a tricky one to police.
Aggressive, antagonistic behaviour is allowed by the game rules provided it is not sustained towards a particular player. Name calling in chat isn't, logging off is allowed, other modes & filters are allowed.
This is not a complicated thing to understand. If you are playing a board game or cards with others, one is about to lose big time but the sit there, refusing to take their final turn to trigger your trap whichever choice they make. Do you just sit there & wait forever? No, you call checkmate (or equivalent). And they lose, because it's a game
Both are impolite, inconsiderate. One is actually cheating though
I used to play a lot of sports. Anyone I played with would agree it would be better for a team not to turn up at all rather than cause the game to be abandoned because they were losing. The fun comes from someone having the potential to win the encounter and someone lose. Combat logging removes that.
It's counted as a win because what else do you do?
There's also he potential for this to be extended to NPCs. Is it even be worth Frontier's while in creating new Thargoids for example? If we just combat log against anything difficult, we might as well take weapons off NPCs. Why waste lines of code if we ensure they can never kill us anyway?
This is not a complicated thing to understand. If you are playing a board game or cards with others, one is about to lose big time but the sit there, refusing to take their final turn to trigger your trap whichever choice they make. Do you just sit there & wait forever? No, you call checkmate (or equivalent). And they lose, because it's a game
Both are impolite, inconsiderate. One is actually cheating though
What if you're not at their table though and they drag you over by force to play at their table and you have 2 cards and they have 7 ?
Am I to just sit there and let them have their fun while my game goes back to where I started 2 hours ago ?
What about it? That has 0 weight on this topic. Theres game mechanics. If you are actively trying to go around those game mechanics, via non intended means, i.e. force disconnect to avoid consequences, it's a bad thing and there needs to be some kind of penalty.
Using that analogy, you could argue that you did join their table since open is equivalent to going out to the casino. Maybe the table has friendly amateurs. Maybe there's a couple of professionals sitting in who can and will clean you out. You can't control that, just as you can't control who you meet in open.
Game mechanics don't legitimise bullying behaviour
A game of cards is a very bad analogy, the whole thing with something like ED is that all players are free to engage in the game in a variety of different ways.
If you must use it though, no Casino on the planet will drag you from the 50c table to sit with the high rollers.
Yes you can't control who you meet, but the behaviour of those you meet can be controlled.
Just to be clear here I am not talking about being attacked in general, as I have previously started that is an important part of the excitement of the game. The issue for me are those attacks that have no purpose. You are hopelessly outclassed and the attack has nothing to gain other than the destruction of your ship and sending you back to square one.
This comes from my 2 experiences of this player behaviour in game, where I was shot down in an unarmed ship doing a CG by fellows in super tanked combat ships.
When I asked them why they did it the response was because they liked messing with other players. So no game mechanics just a desire to bully other players.