Yes you do have that right, but conversely if you did that in open then you are also spoiling their game, on their PC using their network. They should have the right to complain about it too & not be called griefers (legitimate piracy is not griefing) & low lifes. They should also have the right to request punishment for anyone that combat logs on them.
Combat Logging Punishment Proposal
Yes you do have that right, but conversely if you did that in open then you are also spoiling their game, on their PC using their network. They should have the right to complain about it too & not be called griefers (legitimate piracy is not griefing) & low lifes. They should also have the right to request punishment for anyone that combat logs on them.
Please, elaborate. There are plenty of test cases discussed in this thread, I'd be happy to discuss another.
Last edited:
Ok, but this will be my last post here for a while...it all depresses me.
If I am flying along at (for instance) a CG, and you decide to interdict me for whatever reason. Nobody has forced you do do so, but you are forcing me to play a part of the game I have no interest in.
If I leave, I leave. This is not escaping the repercussions of any choice of mine, but solely of your choice to attack.
Why should I therefore be punished for not wanting this? You can say all you like that by flying in open I agree to it, but that's nonsense. There should be a restricted mode for people who want PvP play, and open should be PvE only.
So if an NPC pirate attacks you would act differently?
It is different, yes. it isn't personal with an NPC.
MickyG1982, I'd really appreciate it if you would accept that others hold different views from your own, and that constant sniping does not encourage lively debate, only unhelpful hostility. This is not DD, we are debating the merits of a proposal.
Last edited:
You have already said you have found your own solution, which is not to play in modes where PvP can happen. If all potential CLoggers made this rational choice when loading the game, there would be fewer players in Open (or groups that allow PvP), but those that remain would know they are not upsetting a player by attacking them.
If I were to interdict you (not something I would personally do but lets go with it), you were not wanted & there was no apparent reason to you why I behaved aggressively towards you, that does not mean there is no reason, only that you do not understand it.
In a worst case scenario, I am interdicting you because I want to cause you grief - I am intentionally trying to upset you. This is something that you would not enjoy, I am being a griefer & I don't want you to enjoy the experience, because I'm being spiteful. However there are players who enjoy this gameplay. They enjoy turning the tables on the griefer, from simply denying them a victory by escaping (using in-game mechanics), or by being a wolf in sheeps clothing and causing the attacker to flee.
Now if I try to grief you, and you beat me off with unexpected skill & tenacity, I may then CLog and you are denied the satisfaction of giving me a good kicking. That is, as I hope you can appreciate, also frustrating. The griefer gets away, drops to solo to change position (to escape the in-game consequences of their poor decision) and returns to attack another, hopefully less prepared victim.
In post #267 and 268 I consider a proposal that restricts the CLogger to return to the mode they just left. This allows you (the solo/group player) to simply return to the mode you were in (the one you wanted to be in), but means the Clogging Griefer can no longer switch modes to avoid those trying to stop them.
With this in place, I believe the playerbase stands a better chance of being able to self-police sealclubbers & other less desirable playstyles, easing the burden on a rule based crime & punishment mechanism.
In turn, this will allow a player such as yourself to potentially feel more comfortable about trying Open (if you want to but are discouraged by stories of griefing).
There will always be solo & groups for those that simply do not want any hostile Cmdr encounters. Open play has no rules of engagement, anything can happen. If it were PvE only it would require considerable dev work to create & maintain a solid rule system. I would prefer the devs' time be spent more productively on new content, and allow the players to police themselves.
Last edited:
My arguments aren't aimed specifically against Siobhan but against the general consensus that it is my absolute right to "spoil" someone else's game to prevent them from spoiling mine, in a game where player interaction good or bad (to a point) is supposed to be encouraged for starters.
Given that we all play in the same sandpit together even when we can't see anyone else, every action that we take affects the game that everyone else plays, you complete a mission for faction X & it affects Faction Y & Z. You CLOG on any Player or NPC that interdicts you & you change the effect on the BGS & can mean the difference between their faction & your faction taking over a station.
In a CG for example, what if that Combat logger was UA bombing the CG station. Intercepted by a player, he logs off without getting destroyed then logs back on & open or another mode completes his or her journey and the load of UA's he has taken disrupts the CG station. They have just spoiled every ones game.
An NPC interdicts him or her in solo, they CLog go into another mode(or even the same one) complete their journey and disrupt their station and spoil every ones game.
Not every trader does this, there are bad eggs everywhere, it affects traders too, especially when our cash cows get destroyed by it. But it is perfectly plausible and completely circumvents any attempts to prevent it from happening.
Oppose a CG, or indeed be on the opposite side? Circumvent any defenses by simply logging on anything that interdicts you & favour your side of the CG by delivering your load. This leads to possible lop sided CG results, again affecting everybody's game whether you log against an NPC or a player.
Ram outside the station, same effect.
Want to win at powerplay? Heck, just log on the opposite side because they are spoiling my gameplay. Leads to the other side doing it, an exploit arms race that every side will use against every other faction because they are doing it too.
There are actual griefers, I'd punish them too. People hanging about outside of stations waiting to ram you because you are 1k over the speed limit they are gentleman sausages & should be punished for it. Repeatedly targeting you over someone else, they should be punished for it, combat logging just because you are on the losing side & you should be punished - even if it is against an NPC (for repeated offenses in both cases). In all cases, which involve griefing &/or Combat logging (unless being griefed) it is tantamount to cheating & cheating spoils the game for everyone in the end.
This is why CLogging against both NPC's & Players should be punished, in the same way that actual griefing should be punished, they are all spoiling someone else's game & you can't punish one without punishing the other.
For the record too, I don't believe that that punishment should extend to being banned from the game, but it should extend to any contribution that they make to it. I.e CG deliveries shouldn't be counted, same with effects on the BGS or system economy for example.
The only exception to this for me would be the graceful logout & only because it has been deemed as legal by FD & I agree with that, it takes 15 seconds to jump out of a system & it's a 15 second log, most of the damage that is going to be done is going to happen then.
Its probably a bit drastic to mark after one incident but something that reflects 'karma' in game after a pattern emerges is definitely a good idea.
I don't know if something like this have been suggested before.
Log received damage and make an average value, so if someone combat logs during combat and is taking damage then when they log back on 15 seconds of damage will be added to the ship during the loading screen and if it results in the ship being destroyed the CMDR is greeted with the rebuy screen...
Sounds simple but I don't know if it can be done.
Log received damage and make an average value, so if someone combat logs during combat and is taking damage then when they log back on 15 seconds of damage will be added to the ship during the loading screen and if it results in the ship being destroyed the CMDR is greeted with the rebuy screen...
Sounds simple but I don't know if it can be done.
Last edited:
In a conversation with Cmdr Tel on another thread a flaw in the mode restricting proposal has been highlighted:
TL;DR
On an ungraceful exit while the ship is in danger only allow the player to rejoin the mode they left. (more info here)
If the CLogger quickly rejoins the same mode multiple times add a wait timer at the menu screen.
Thanks to Cmdr Tel for their valuable insight.
So this wouldn't be eliminated by restricting mode switching, but would be captured by a karma type system.
Lets look at this from the accidental disconnect stance (rather than only a tactical CLog) & see if there is a test it can pass or fail.
You are proposing that if the network connection fails (for whatever reason) where the ship is in danger but the disconnected player wants to rejoin the same mode ASAP (a few seconds later) the disconnecting player should be restricted from rejoining for a short period (your suggest 5mins) if it happens more than once.
In a consensual PvP fight any repeating network problems would likely cause the organised match to be called off until any problems can be resolved, so I don't think anyone would complain here, just reshedule the match.
In a situation where the 'goodie' CLogs & the baddie is left in-game the goodie would probably be okay with having to wait to rejoin, the 'baddie' could choose to wait (assuming the goodie is restricted to return to the mode they left). Potentially the baddie gets bored & moves off to find another target, I don't think the goodie would complain about not being able to immediately rejoin, probably a good time for a break anyway.
In the situation where the 'baddie' CLogs to evade the wolf in sheeps clothing and as you suggest, wants to rejoin the same mode ASAP to have another slice of cake, the timer & mode restricting rules would work in combination to effectively imprison the baddie - they cannot attack either the wolf in sheeps clothing or choose another victim, they cannot move from their position either. I like this
So, Wings. where do they come into this? Can the rule simply apply to all players & scenarios (where the ship is in danger), or is there a special case where being in a wing changes the outcome?
TL;DR
On an ungraceful exit while the ship is in danger only allow the player to rejoin the mode they left. (more info here)
If the CLogger quickly rejoins the same mode multiple times add a wait timer at the menu screen.
Thanks to Cmdr Tel for their valuable insight.
Last edited:
Sounds good to me.
Good spot on that exploit CMDR Tel.
After a certain number of repeated ungraceful exits, I'd suggest having a short 15-20m "naughty step" solo only timer, with a polite message saying something like "Multiple ungraceful exits detected, please check your connection. You are restricted to Solo for X minutes".
It's a real time timer, so if you genuinely are having a bad connection day, it's not going to last long, and you can keep playing.
Sounds good to me.
Good spot on that exploit CMDR Tel.
After a certain number of repeated ungraceful exits, I'd suggest having a short 15-20m "naughty step" solo only timer, with a polite message saying something like "Multiple ungraceful exits detected, please check your connection. You are restricted to Solo for X minutes".
It's a real time timer, so if you genuinely are having a bad connection day, it's not going to last long, and you can keep playing.
Seems to me it's extremely unlikely that Tel's timer would cut in on an innocent party, but yes if they were innocent restricting to solo would allow them to continue to play while still keeping the cynical exploiter out of the fight. It would allow the timer to be extended to account for longer wing battles too.
have them respawn piloting an unarmed sidewinder in a high intensity combat zone.
Why?
If you don't pick a side, you're perfectly safe.
however punish me I've been bad.....
Why?
If you don't pick a side, you're perfectly safe.
ok, we'll do that but have the sidewinder with "you're all es" painted on it.
that should 've read ok, we'll do that but have the sidewinder with "you're all *@$##es" painted on it.
Last edited:
What if it's an accidental disconnect? or a game bug?
One of the earlier suggestions was to blow up both ships. It would be less dev work
What if it's an accidental disconnect? or a game bug?
One of the earlier suggestions was to blow up both ships. It would be less dev work
We could have a nice balanced approach that doesn't effect genuine disconnects, but is still a good deterrent for Clogging...
Or we can have ridiculous ideas.
Mine is: FD send people to assassinate you in real life.
If you survive this attempt, then you can rejoin the game.
Seems fair. I would have been assassinated 100s of times already when Sky broke my internet. But that's a small price to pay ... Lol
Well if FDev are going to throw manpower at this I'd go for every copy of the game coming with an FDev support employee to stand behind you & judge intent
It would definitely work, cost might be an issue though
oops, what about network disconnect or power failure, or my company's personel is calling me, or someone is ringing the front door bell? That's why the menu log exists, isn't it? is permitted even if it's in combat