Combat Logging

[Harley Quinn]

Wait wait wait, according to some forum members Mobius is more populated than OPEN, and open is a desert.

Interesting...

It is at times. Did one of the Aegis CGs about a month ago. After seeing nobody in open for an hour I switched to Mobius and joined the traffic jam at the drop off station. Kept switching back and forth every hour or 2 and it stayed the same all the way through it.

Some of that would have been instancing but other than 1 other Cmdr hauling goods in with a Cutter open might as well have been solo for me on that one.

For random travel rather than an obvious choke point, I do find open busier though. But it’s still a big empty galaxy generally in any mode.

 

[Vorxian]

I have to lighten the mood a bit..

Check this poor guy out.

First the stapler, combat logs. Then his phone combat logs, and just when things look like they couldn't get any worse, his DESK combat logs!

[video=youtube;YyLJMejwj5Y]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YyLJMejwj5Y[/video]

Maybe that's the secret, when someone CL's on you, they leave skittles

 

[Ozram]

Sight and Sound Theater Pennsylvania
https://www.usfa.fema.gov/downloads/pdf/publications/tr-097.pdf

McCormick Center Chicago
http://www.exhibitcitynews.com/rebuilt-never-forgotten-mccormick-place-fire-1967/

Historical Survey of Multi-Story Buildings collapse due to fire
https://www.jensenhughes.com/wp-con...g_Collapse_NIST_JBeitel-NIwankiw_OCT-2006.pdf

Winsor Tower Madrid
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UM3l1GCpB4o

And whatever this building is called
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8XMTALBYRNA

Atlanta Bridge:
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...ows-how-fire-defeats-concrete-steel/99877148/

Cheers. Notice how much is left of the steal structures as well as the asymmetrical colapse. Now go look at some controlled demolition vids. Which look more like the twin towers? Or building 3?

 

[Ozram]

Duh, they should not be given same instance as attacker too quickly after such abnormal disconnect. So no, they will not "reappear".

Is that your suggestion for a solution or are you trying to say my scenario did not happen? I’m a little fuzzy on your reply.

 

[Ozram]

Personally I'd prefer an example of any building that isnt a purpose built or hardened military installation thats capable of surviving lateral impacts from jet liners.

Sorry. I didn’t mean to take the off topic so far. Anywho, there’s a difference between a building surviving an impact like that and it collapsing symmetrically to the ground in a fashion only seen before during controlled demolitions.

 

[Aashenfox]

Cheers. Notice how much is left of the steal structures as well as the asymmetrical colapse. Now go look at some controlled demolition vids. Which look more like the twin towers? Or building 3?

My wife is a very good civil engineer, she said AT THE TIME (while she was still studying engineering), that the collapse of the twin towers meant that there was something FUNDAMENTALLY wrong with the building's materials or design, to collapse in that way (of course nobody was thinking at the time that it might have been done deliberately), she also pointed out that steel buildings collapsed by fire, behave more like a melted candle than a chimney stack collapse.

Is that your suggestion for a solution or are you trying to say my scenario did not happen? I’m a little fuzzy on your reply.

The former. I assumed the latter as well, but was corrected.

 

[Rampant]

*The thing is, why engage in higher risk. When you dont HAVE to. And get the same reward.*

I just dont think this is very fair. Especially when it comes to pirating. And engagement with other players. There are different levels of skills with each player. Its more in depth than NPC's. With NPC's there is always a basic pattern.

And Sandro did touch on pirating getting a buff today.

But in the end, there really needs to be an incentive for player activity vs NPC activity. People should be rewarded for the higher value of risks. And its not punishing other modes really. Its just merely rewarding people for the levels of risks they are taking.

But at the same time, super easily exploited. Guess its wishful thinking.

Oh my god what have I been saying for multiple posts?

Why engage in the extra risk?

Do you?

Why do you do it?

Because you *enjoy* it, presumably. And therein lies *your* extra reward. You can claim to me that you are having a much "richer", "more challenging" and "more enjoyable" game experience than I am when I play in Mobius.

The thing here being that I don't enjoy the same thing as you do. At least when I was out this morning in Open in my Asp X doing the trade CG and I observed 6 (or more?) uber-kitted FdLs marshalling together just outside the no fire zone at George Lucas in Leesti. You just *know* that they aren't there to "Pirate" don't you? At least the lone FGS I observed in SC was probably playing a better "game".

You're asking Asp drivers and T6, T7 pilots etc to come to Open for a %bonus (or as you wanted when you strongly suggested multiple times to remove BGS influence entirely from PG and Solo) or to be able to influence the BGS at all and face wings of combat FdLs??? Are you actually serious??? Both of those suggestions are dead in the water because they will both kill the game stone dead. No amount of small bonus makes up for multiple rebuys on those ships *when there is risk present* so the incentive will not work to get people into a "risky" Open. Sure, when there is *no risk present* the players will use Open for their bonus.

And that's why, if you would just care to use a little *analysis*, the imbalance would be worse under the suggested system.

Do you acknowledge this now?

Cheerz

Mark H

 

[Cosmos]

Sight and Sound Theater Pennsylvania
https://www.usfa.fema.gov/downloads/pdf/publications/tr-097.pdf

McCormick Center Chicago
http://www.exhibitcitynews.com/rebuilt-never-forgotten-mccormick-place-fire-1967/

Historical Survey of Multi-Story Buildings collapse due to fire
https://www.jensenhughes.com/wp-con...g_Collapse_NIST_JBeitel-NIwankiw_OCT-2006.pdf

Winsor Tower Madrid
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UM3l1GCpB4o

And whatever this building is called
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8XMTALBYRNA

Atlanta Bridge:
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...ows-how-fire-defeats-concrete-steel/99877148/

lmao.... How did we get on to 9/11? btw, only a section of those collapsed

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Cheers. Notice how much is left of the steal structures as well as the asymmetrical collapse. Now go look at some controlled demolition vids. Which look more like the twin towers? Or building 3?

Ah, you meet one challenge, and the goalposts are shifted.

The asymmetrical collapse was due to the fire being on one side of the building. I have looked at loads of controlled demolitions and there's a couple of things that are true for every single one of them. The position and order of explosions is a fine art, the wiring needs to be precise and the time impeccable. Believing that the rigging was put up without any employee ever noticing it, or the rigging would survive and impact of a fueled airplane in both occasions is ludicrous.

lmao.... How did we get on to 9/11? btw, only a section of those collapsed

True, Because they didn't have a largo portion of the building weighing down on it and the whole floor wasn't on fire.

But can we at least agree that great amounts of heat, even though it's below the melting point of steel, can cause buildings to collapse?

I'm fine with continuing this discussion in an off-topic section.

 

[Ozram]

Ah, you meet one challenge, and the goalposts are shifted.

The asymmetrical collapse was due to the fire being on one side of the building. I have looked at loads of controlled demolitions and there's a couple of things that are true for every single one of them. The position and order of explosions is a fine art, the wiring needs to be precise and the time impeccable. Believing that the rigging was put up without any employee ever noticing it, or the rigging would survive and impact of a fueled airplane in both occasions is ludicrous.

True, Because they didn't have a largo portion of the building weighing down on it and the whole floor wasn't on fire.

But can we at least agree that great amounts of heat, even though it's below the melting point of steel, can cause buildings to collapse?

I'm fine with continuing this discussion in an off-topic section.

Goalpost has not shifted. I never suggested steel framed/reinforced buildings were indestructible, only that they did not colapse in the spectacular fashion that we see in 911. Go ahead and look. I’d love to be proven wrong.

 

[RidingTheFlow]

Guys can you please stop with off-topic already? Unless you want this thread moderated into oblivion.

 

[Ozram]

Guys can you please stop with off-topic already? Unless you want this thread moderated into oblivion.

Sorry. It is fun though.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Goalpost has not shifted. I never suggested steel framed/reinforced buildings were indestructible, only that they did not colapse in the spectacular fashion that we see in 911. Go ahead and look. I’d love to be proven wrong.

I addressed the way they collapsed as well, I trust that was sufficient.

Guys can you please stop with off-topic already? Unless you want this thread moderated into oblivion.

You're right of course. I'll report this post and will ask a moderator if it can be moved to an off-topic thread.

Sorry. It is fun though.

And beats talking about combat logging

Last post about 9/11 in this thread.

 

[Vorxian]

but but but, they collapsed because they had a mac-off airliner flown into them. Had that not happened, they'd be quite happy standing today..

How'd we get on to this anyway?

I still think "combat logging" is another way of saying 'documenting' an encounter for review. I just looked it up for 100% clarity:

noun: Log

• 1. a part of the trunk or a large branch of a tree that has fallen or been cut off. "she tripped over a fallen log"

• 2. an official record of events during the voyage of a ship or aircraft. "a ship's log"

Combat chunk of wood.. just doesn't make sense, it can only refer to number 2.

 

[Stigbob]

Sorry. I didn’t mean to take the off topic so far. Anywho, there’s a difference between a building surviving an impact like that and it collapsing symmetrically to the ground in a fashion only seen before during controlled demolitions.

Last offtopic,

Spoiler

that's true in theory but if you drop the immense weight of lots of floors of a skyscraper onto the floor beneath there's a good chance that floor will immediately collapse, if it does the floor beneath will also go thanks to the same wieght plus the extra added floor, the rubble will even out towards the centre as the floors are pushed downwards with the outer edges resisiting longest as that's where some really strong structural parts are and most importantly much less rubble from destroyed floors. Once it's got enough weight behind it it simply collapses straight down pulling the outer edges inwards (which is what you want in demolition) the internal collapse was probably a few floors ahead of the visible collapse.

That's the first tower the second had it's lower floors smashed and weakened by the rubble of the first and went unevenly from the bottom, which is why it went down slightly off kilter in comparison to the first.

It's an incredible amount of physical damage delivered at high speed from the angle skyscrapers are not designed to resist that did it. The fuel probably did more damage through increased mass on impact than by burning, the beams didn't melt they were probably shattered.

Clogging is naughty.

 

[Vorxian]

Clogging is naughty.

Clogs are naughty!

 

[Navigare Necesse Est]

Clogs are naughty!

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/eb/Dutchclogs.jpg/220px-Dutchclogs.jpg

On naked girls?

 

[Muetdhiver]

Oh my god what have I been saying for multiple posts?

Why engage in the extra risk?

Do you?

Why do you do it?

Because you *enjoy* it, presumably. And therein lies *your* extra reward. You can claim to me that you are having a much "richer", "more challenging" and "more enjoyable" game experience than I am when I play in Mobius.

The thing here being that I don't enjoy the same thing as you do. At least when I was out this morning in Open in my Asp X doing the trade CG and I observed 6 (or more?) uber-kitted FdLs marshalling together just outside the no fire zone at George Lucas in Leesti. You just *know* that they aren't there to "Pirate" don't you? At least the lone FGS I observed in SC was probably playing a better "game".

You're asking Asp drivers and T6, T7 pilots etc to come to Open for a %bonus (or as you wanted when you strongly suggested multiple times to remove BGS influence entirely from PG and Solo) or to be able to influence the BGS at all and face wings of combat FdLs??? Are you actually serious??? Both of those suggestions are dead in the water because they will both kill the game stone dead. No amount of small bonus makes up for multiple rebuys on those ships *when there is risk present* so the incentive will not work to get people into a "risky" Open. Sure, when there is *no risk present* the players will use Open for their bonus.

And that's why, if you would just care to use a little *analysis*, the imbalance would be worse under the suggested system.

Do you acknowledge this now?

Cheerz

Mark H

While it is true that most "pirates" in open have nothing to do with actualy getting cargo from traders, the point remains :

If there are no traders in open, there is no one to do actual targets for PvP piracy. So, there are two problems :

1) Finding a way to curb the ganking nonsense which seems to be 80% of what PvP consist of nowadays.

2) Once 1) is done, find a way to bring the traders in open. Which translates either lowering the risk or increasing the reward. (simple economics, no one will take a higher risk option for the same profit).

Saying that 2) is silly because of gankers is silly. 2) is necessary, but will only work once 1) is done

 

[Vorxian]

While it is true that most "pirates" in open have nothing to do with actualy getting cargo from traders, the point remains :

If there are no traders in open, there is no one to do actual targets for PvP piracy. So, there are two problems :

1) Finding a way to curb the ganking nonsense which seems to be 80% of what PvP consist of nowadays.

2) Once 1) is done, find a way to bring the traders in open. Which translates either lowering the risk or increasing the reward. (simple economics, no one will take a higher risk option for the same profit).

Saying that 2) is silly because of gankers is silly. 2) is necessary, but will only work once 1) is done

It's hard to disagree, but the only caveat is that both OPEN and Solo / Group have no advantages over each other. You don't want to penalise folks in solo, which is unfortunately going to be the mindset if they buff payouts in open mode. The devs have said time and time again that all modes are equal, but as soon as you start rewarding one over the other.. the floodgate will open in full.

You're right that there has to be an incentive to come in to open, but just what.. That's the real head scratcher, and after all this time, it still remains impossible to answer.

 

[WorldsGreatestForumDad]

Oh my god what have I been saying for multiple posts?

Why engage in the extra risk?

Do you?

Why do you do it?

Because you *enjoy* it, presumably. And therein lies *your* extra reward. You can claim to me that you are having a much "richer", "more challenging" and "more enjoyable" game experience than I am when I play in Mobius.

The thing here being that I don't enjoy the same thing as you do. At least when I was out this morning in Open in my Asp X doing the trade CG and I observed 6 (or more?) uber-kitted FdLs marshalling together just outside the no fire zone at George Lucas in Leesti. You just *know* that they aren't there to "Pirate" don't you? At least the lone FGS I observed in SC was probably playing a better "game".

You're asking Asp drivers and T6, T7 pilots etc to come to Open for a %bonus (or as you wanted when you strongly suggested multiple times to remove BGS influence entirely from PG and Solo) or to be able to influence the BGS at all and face wings of combat FdLs??? Are you actually serious??? Both of those suggestions are dead in the water because they will both kill the game stone dead. No amount of small bonus makes up for multiple rebuys on those ships *when there is risk present* so the incentive will not work to get people into a "risky" Open. Sure, when there is *no risk present* the players will use Open for their bonus.

And that's why, if you would just care to use a little *analysis*, the imbalance would be worse under the suggested system.

Do you acknowledge this now?

Cheerz

Mark H

No I dont.

Its simple. You get the same rewards in solo and private as you do with the higher risk vs someone like me. Im smarter, stronger and faster than any NPC. And when someone has to put up with someone like me. They should be rewarded for it. And not the same as a NPC.

The risk is obviously greater. Mobius exists because people dont want to be shot at. Its the only thing separating the two. Even Sandro acknowledged this a while back.

Anyone here, saying the risks in open is not greater is living in denial.

So because of that. As of right now, if you want to fight over territory within the BGS against another faction. Or missions rewards. Ect ect. There is no reason to go into open at all. When you can stop all the risk of any players bothering you and get the same reward.

Get this through your head.

Stop kidding yourself.