Yes, and conversley someone can be having a bad day with the internet, that does happen, that day get kicked off three times during combat, arguably the most connection reliant activity in the game, and get kicked to solo and have no way to prove it wasn't them. Any punishment for Clogging needs to be based on an absolute certainty, not just "we think he combat logged"
Combat Logging Punishment Proposal
Yes, and conversley someone can be having a bad day with the internet, that does happen, that day get kicked off three times during combat, arguably the most connection reliant activity in the game, and get kicked to solo and have no way to prove it wasn't them. Any punishment for Clogging needs to be based on an absolute certainty, not just "we think he combat logged"
That is my point. Any talk of punishment needs to come after we can actually prove it. As it is right now, unless some moron actually admits to it we have no way of figuring out what is a legit issue, or an actual c-log.
I am all for harsh punishment if it could be reasonably proven, but we don't have a way to prove or disprove it. So here we are. Only thing we could do includes naming and shaming. Which is still not proof, and is too easily abused to be really be considered useful.
The reason CQC is a fail, and will remain so, is because we are limited to pisant SLF ships. If they let us fly our magnificent power boats
it would become one of the most popular modes in the game overnight. Sorry for getting off topic. Carry on..
X.
That has to be the most laughable thing i've read in a while. How would overpowered, over engineered ships improve CQC? Where's the balance? At least at the moment it's an almost level playing field allowing new and old players to shoot at each other without being one shotted by some over endowed large vessel. No no no. May your idea never happen.
So CQC failed because players have to rely on skill and skill alone, it isn't a case of who has the biggest ship or spent the most time grinding mats and engineering is the winner.
Hmm interesting ….
No it failed because it's boring.
I never said this should replace the current CQC but be added as an optional mode for those interested in it. The SLF mode would remain the way it is.
Sheesh, think people before pouncing.
X.
Well when you only give half your concept in your initial post what are people expected to do, mind read? Reading the post in question there was no mention of having two modes: player owned ships and SLF's, just player owned ships! Sheesh, think people would read what they post before pouncing
It's interesting to re-read the post you quoted, I think it was one that started me thinking about how Meaningful PvP might help the game a month or so after that post. But that would need a rule for ungraceful disconnects while the ship is in danger.
CQC in it's present form is OK but not enough is what I was getting at. I would love an identical mode but only with players' ships. No re-buys, no whining about ganking, just plain old bloody deathmatches. A place to test out your ships capabilities. In fact a 3rd mode, with just vanilla builds would be awesome as well, letting people put their true skill to the test without the engineering crutch. Anyway back to topic. Sorry again for the de-rail. X.
And we're back, again!
Man, time has gone by quickly. Lol
Especially when you read all 27 pages.
One thing I noticed, was Karma was mentioned probably several 100 times.
What's even going on with that anymore? Does anyone know? Lol
Last edited:
Firm no on this. Penalizing players who legitimately crash out of the game? You would be hurting far more players then helping.
And by the state of other game, such system have not been abused.... like using DDOS attacks to force opposing players to disconnect... totally a non-issue in other games...
Just using your favourite internet search engine and do a search for: PvP DDOS
gives some interresting reading about how likely this would be abused if such punishment was introduced... Could actually be interresting gather all the IPs of the ones suggesting these sort of measures and show them how bad their idea is by knocking them of the internet... tends to be a big eye opener about how fragile our internet connections can be.
New guy here. Coming from an open online environment where there is no solo, there are no timers or any ability to disconnect without persisting in the world, the potential losses in PvP are catastrophic, and DDOS attacks are not something that is even considered, because they are an external connection issue.
It is weird to me that this is a problem here.
That's it. That's really all I had to contribute. It's weird to me that combat logging and timers are even a thing, especially in a game where the Open environment can be actively ignored for solo and private alternatives. Is this because (and I do not mean this in an insulting or combative way) Elite is just softer? Because people talk about "certainty" that a disconnection was actually combat logging, and frankly, most games out there don't particularly care.
It is weird to me that this is a problem here.
That's it. That's really all I had to contribute. It's weird to me that combat logging and timers are even a thing, especially in a game where the Open environment can be actively ignored for solo and private alternatives. Is this because (and I do not mean this in an insulting or combative way) Elite is just softer? Because people talk about "certainty" that a disconnection was actually combat logging, and frankly, most games out there don't particularly care.
Because you are coming from a game where you are playing on a central server whereas Elite uses a P2P system for player interaction.
DDOS attacks aren't considered because they are virtually impossible, the only way to do a DDOS would be to DDOS the central server which would bring everyone's game down, your opponents, yours, your friends, so it's not something that's worried about in a server client environment. In the p2P environment with the right tools it's quite easy to find your opponents IP address and attack just that player and not affect anyone else.
There are timers here because in the P2P environment, once a player has disconnected that's it, there's no way to make the player persistent in the universe, the timer is there as a sort of replacement for persistence, but it only works if a player uses the timer rather than just pulling the plug.
I will give you the benefit of the doubt because, as you say, you are new here, but these issues have been discussed for years by the community and the issues and problems of the P2P model compared to the client/server model are well understood.
Just to add to varonica's reply.
This game was not designed for competitive PvP, and many of the players who pledged to support the development came from the Solo player world, and quite a few of those who pledged had played the old Elite games, add to this that many also wanted to have Elite with friends...
With so many players pledging to support the game with no real wish for PvP, then the solution we got was the different modes, that allowed most players to satisfied and be able to choose what they want. And with the game design using P2P, then there are quite alot of things that can go wrong with the network connectivity, then competetive PvP is not feasible to expect, so any suggestions that wants punish other player for things that can be controlled by other player is always going to be a bad idea. And there is a competetive PvP option in Elite, called CQC... and that one is hardly used...
If the issue is with the P2P model, then I completely understand. Say no more, Commander. o7
A ridiculous suggestion when originally made and just as ridiculous now. As a network admin I can tell you that networks are unreliable, the connections go down all the time for reasons completely outside user control. That is why network admins exist, to troubleshoot network outages.
What solution would you prefer?