Combat logging no longer an exploit? * trigger warning *

[Rat Catcher]

A simple quitters penalty at minimum would be great. Where if you disconnect anytime your faced with the quit timer, you have to wait x amount of time to play again at all.

Tons of games do this, unfair to actual disconnections,? Yeah a little. But a worthwhile change anyway. If you're disconnecting you're probably not gonna be able to play until that issue is resolved anyway

I'd have had fun on Sunday then, if the game followed such penalties... 4 brief power outages (less than a minute each) over roughly 45 minutes, PC is fine as it is on a UPS, sadly the router isn't (but will be soon!), would have had me unable to play for however long the quit timer had set...

I'm glad I don't play those other games, but then, I probably wouldn't like them anyway, if they need to "punish" any disconnection.

 

[Cheese Helmet]

I'd have had fun on Sunday then, if the game followed such penalties... 4 brief power outages (less than a minute each) over roughly 45 minutes, PC is fine as it is on a UPS, sadly the router isn't (but will be soon!), would have had me unable to play for however long the quit timer had set...

I'm glad I don't play those other games, but then, I probably wouldn't like them anyway, if they need to "punish" any disconnection.

Unless you were in combat or other scenario that causes the quit to menu timer to trigger, you wouldn't face one.

 

[Mohrgan]

Clearly, quite a few people do care, including FDev it seems.

Prove it.

 

[Maggie_Oz]

A simple quitters penalty at minimum would be great.

A better solution would to be to look at the reason for the quitter quitting and fix that side of things

 

[Maggie_Oz]

anyone choosing to cease playing the game and turning it off is violating S4.4 of the EULA

The EULA makes no mention what so ever of severing the connection being against the agreement.

 

[NorthernDevo]

Given that combat logging is the act of exiting the game by alt-F4 (or in my case on console, exiting the application), pulling the network cable or power supply, then no, never.

That is combat logging. What you're describing with the countdown, regardless of what it is, is menu logging. This is different in the eyes of Frontier. Yes I have done that, I'll admit to being lazy about not jumping to a different guardian site when one runs out of sources for epsilon pattern data. In combat, again, never.

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!

 

[NorthernDevo]

Oh dear, have you been digging in and defending menu-logging (exiting via the game menu with a 15sec danger countdown) as a valid tactic, but actually (incorrectly) refering to that as combat-logging (instantly exiting via router/task Killing). That's really a bit sad, given that both terms are quite clearly defined earlier in the thread - by posts quoting FDev. Maybe you should be snickering at yourself?

ABSOLUTELY.
I fully accept and take responsibility when I make a mistake - God knows I have enough practice lol. I misunderstood the difference between combat logging and menu logging - mainly because it's something I never do myself.
When I make a mistake, I'm the one which will shrug, grin, and take the return shots...then post it the next time people are talking about their mistakes.
At any rate, yes, I HAVE been digging in and defending it, and now that I know the difference I defend it even MORE. My response and apology to Deejayjeff should be just above this one - I give my reasons there.
Cheers!

 

[Riverside]

Prove it.

This thread asks that very question & the evidence has been provided already. That's the point of the thread

 

[Deleted member 121570]

The EULA makes no mention what so ever of severing the connection being against the agreement.

I completely agree, and was largely the point I was making. You've quoted out of context and made it look like I was saying the exact opposite of what I was actually saying

 

[Maggie_Oz]

I completely agree, and was largely the point I was making. You've quoted out of context and made it look like I was saying the exact opposite of what I was actually saying

I was agreeing with you

 

[Deleted member 121570]

I was agreeing with you

Ah cool! The snippet quoted missed the first section so it looked as though it's saying it did violate the EULA, which is the opposite. I see

 

[Maggie_Oz]

Ah cool! The snippet quoted missed the first section so it looked as though it's saying it did violate the EULA, which is the opposite. I see

Sorry for the confusion.

 

[Cheese Helmet]

A better solution would to be to look at the reason for the quitter quitting and fix that side of things

Ok. The quitter quits to avoid death and the consequences of. So how about any damage causes the 15 sec timer to refresh every time you take damage. Not only that, but Damage to your ship means it will persist after you log out until the timer counts down, or you stop taking damage.

So quitting will only make your ship more vulnerable if in combat.

 

[Maggie_Oz]

Ok. The quitter quits to avoid death and the consequences of. So how about any damage causes the 15 sec timer to refresh every time you take damage. Not only that, but Damage to your ship means it will persist after you log out until the timer counts down, or you stop taking damage.

So quitting will only make your ship more vulnerable if in combat.

You miss my point I think.
I'm saying forget punishing the quitter, look at why they quit and take steps to remedy that.
If they are quitting to avoid combat, look at why they are doing so.

 

[CmdrZaratan]

All they really need to do here to stop the endless threads on combat logging is make ships appear to persist after the connection drops or the countdown timer expires. The murderhobo/emergent gameplay provider gets the satisfaction of blowing up some meaningless pixels and thinking they've spoiled someones day, while the person who has the connection drop or logs out appears back in the same spot safe and sound when they log back in. Win-win to put an end to the whine-whine.

 

[Maggie_Oz]

Win win is always the best solution I think

 

[Just Paul]

All they really need to do here to stop the endless threads on combat logging is make ships appear to persist after the connection drops or the countdown timer expires. The murderhobo/emergent gameplay provider gets the satisfaction of blowing up some meaningless pixels and thinking they've spoiled someones day, while the person who has the connection drop or logs out appears back in the same spot safe and sound when they log back in. Win-win to put an end to the whine-whine.

Then everybody logs and the game becomes meaningless. Why not make all CMDR ships invincible, it has the same effect? Don't need to do PP or BGS anymore either, as it becomes even more a bucket filling contest as it is right now. Forget organic PvP, it's a waste anyways, let's have a space trucking simulator. Maybe FDev should also put every ship in huge cotton balls so not a misjudged landing on a high-g planet is an issue. Why not let everybody jump instantly to any place they want, anyways it's all pretend. And all that because some people click on the wrong mode and/or only want the benefits of that mode without the danger that lurks within. Can't deal with getting your pretend spaceship blown up by another player don't click on open mode. That's the real win-win.

FDev stated multiple times clogging is against the rules and they do hand out punishments for doing it. Also certain macros are allowed (PIP) and others are not (beam cycle). Shooting a CMDR multiple times in a short period will get you in trouble too, that's the harassment clause. Warnings first and temp/full bans to the shadow realm later on. To get a full game ban you really need to do something huge and/or stupid.

 

[Cheese Helmet]

You miss my point I think.
I'm saying forget punishing the quitter, look at why they quit and take steps to remedy that.
If they are quitting to avoid combat, look at why they are doing so.

They are quitting to avoid the consequences of a ship going boom. Lost cargo, data, a rebuy, or just ego. These consequences are designed to be there.

Making the consequences unavoidable isn't a punishment. It's just removing the work around that let's them be avoided.

 

[Maggie_Oz]

They are quitting to avoid the consequences of a ship going boom. Lost cargo, data, a rebuy, or just ego. These consequences are designed to be there.

Making the consequences unavoidable isn't a punishment. It's just removing the work around that let's them be avoided.

The question is then, why play the game if losing those things are an issue and are part of the game?

I put it to you that the primary reason is the disparity of consequence. The target loses everything, the shooter barely loses anything.

 

[Cheese Helmet]

The question is then, why play the game if losing those things are an issue and are part of the game?

I put it to you that the primary reason is the disparity of consequence. The target loses everything, the shooter barely loses anything.

Well the person going boom lost the engagement and therefore should have the greater potential for loss.

If the interaction was one that could even give the person who wins a bounty in the first place. Which isn't always true, because combat logging isn't only limited to carebears screeching into the void. It's a general problem