Combat Logging

[GreyAreaUK]

Absolutely. I totally get where FD were going with the BGS thing, but refusing to concede an inch of ground to resolve any negative implications was just naive. Idc whether they split the BGS into solo/multiplayer or find an in-game way of making both relevant, it'd just be nice to see ED's potential come forward rather than being restricted on both fronts by each other.

I suspect it would be quite expensive to split the BGS.

For a start, if you're going to split it then it needs to be separate for solo/private groups (all lumped into one)/open. So that's now three BGSs instead of one.

Then you've got the consoles. XBox's Open isn't the PC's Open or the Playstation's Open. So that's another two. Then you'd really need to add in the Solo and PGs for the consoles. So that's another four.

From one shared BGS we'd have to have nine. And that's just far too expensive to even consider.

 

[M00ka]

They did, just like this guy. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cnYXTh4TCVo

You owe me 30 seconds of my life back! Like an idiot, I actually thought you might have linked something positive to your claim. All that video consisted of was some random guy sitting in a stationary ship talking, basically sprouting the same lines you have been. For all I know it is your own video!

And I wonder when the video was made, there were a few things that seemed off with it graphic wise and it cuts off mid sentence - I wonder who did the editing????

 

[WorldsGreatestForumDad]

that was actually a good fight. nice flying, dude!
but ... what was that trying do demonstrate (wrt exploits)? :S

Just how people use the lesser path of resistance to impact a player faction knowing they could be stopped.. I think you got this mixed up with the other 2v2 video. But thanks dude.

 

[WorldsGreatestForumDad]

You owe me 30 seconds of my life back! Like an idiot, I actually thought you might have linked something positive to your claim. All that video consisted of was some random guy sitting in a stationary ship talking, basically sprouting the same lines you have been. For all I know it is your own video!

And I wonder when the video was made, there were a few things that seemed off with it graphic wise and it cuts off mid sentence - I wonder who did the editing????

again speaking with no experience too funny. It was a twitch clip (you only get 30 seconds, or did at that time) of a guy attacking my player faction. Proving everything I have been talking about. He had a small group too. And the same premise is happening in colonia as we speak.

Maybe that "crap ive been spewing" IS TRUE. OH NO what shall we do!?!?!?!?!

 

[Whitehair]

Thats all we got.

Not an excuse.

snip... But instead people just whine and cry instead of getting better, or asking for help.

Or simply remove themselves from the equation. I'm pleased for the possibilty to do just that as it lets me play as I wish, when I wish.

 

[Gunnet]

Thats all we got. Thats why I am here. The changes I am asking for benefits everyone. Give PVPers something to do. Give context and meaning to it. And maybe this stuff wouldnt be happening as much. And you could find players for protection in wings. Has anyone ever tried going to a CG and asking PVPers for protection. Or getting ahold of the Iridium wing for escorts? They love that stuff. And would love to try to protect traders. But instead people just whine and cry instead of getting better, or asking for help.

PvE players aren't objectives for PvP players to fight over. Escort missions with NPC cargo ships could be entertaining though.

 

[WorldsGreatestForumDad]

Not an excuse.


Or simply remove themselves from the equation. I'm pleased for the possibilty to do just that as it lets me play as I wish, when I wish.

You know the dangers of open. Play with the risk or dont. You get those choices.

 

[M00ka]

again speaking with no experience too funny. It was a twitch clip (you only get 30 seconds, or did at that time) of a guy attacking my player faction. Proving everything I have been talking about. He had a small group too. And the same premise is happening in colonia as we speak.

Maybe that "crap ive been spewing" IS TRUE. OH NO what shall we do!?!?!?!?!

Sorry then I must have been watching the wrong video, the one I saw was just a stationary ship with some guy prattling on about 'this is how we do it', no further explanation - I could make exactly the same thing and saying the exact opposite - would that prove you are wrong?

 

[WorldsGreatestForumDad]

PvE players aren't objectives for PvP players to fight over. Escort missions with NPC cargo ships could be entertaining though.

No but systems are. And you should be able to defend the objectives against the people that are there. In more ways than a time vs time battle. Whom ever has the most time wins by default.

 

[Whitehair]

You know the dangers of open. Play with the risk or dont. You get those choices.

Don't is my choice from now on, due to the behaviour of the group you are trying to promote.

See you (not) at the next CG.

 

[StiTch]

I suspect it would be quite expensive to split the BGS.

For a start, if you're going to split it then it needs to be separate for solo/private groups (all lumped into one)/open. So that's now three BGSs instead of one.

Then you've got the consoles. XBox's Open isn't the PC's Open or the Playstation's Open. So that's another two. Then you'd really need to add in the Solo and PGs for the consoles. So that's another four.

From one shared BGS we'd have to have nine. And that's just far too expensive to even consider.

It wouldn't take nine; at most four (and each with a quarter of the load ). Solo/PG across all consoles can still share a BGS. This isn't about giving in to the sheer demands of each group that wants their own server, it's about whether the universe you see requires continuity. At present, changes can be made to the BGS from PG where one cannot be seen, and this contradicts true multiplayer because there's no continuity; I cannot barricade a station to stop someone UA bombing it, for instance. And if that's the way that PG players are happy to play, they can happily fight their galaxy's wars from the background like they desire - and would be better off for having all players affecting the same server, no matter PG/solo/console. When your changes revolve around activities you do specifically for the BGS, the more the merrier.

True multiplayer folks just want somewhere that continuity reigns; where you can make a difference by taking some form of initiative, rather than being one part of a few thousand people that happened to grind harder at an activity alone.

 

[WorldsGreatestForumDad]

Sorry then I must have been watching the wrong video, the one I saw was just a stationary ship with some guy prattling on about 'this is how we do it', no further explanation - I could make exactly the same thing and saying the exact opposite - would that prove you are wrong?

No. All this does is show you're willing to argue for the sake of it.

It wouldn't take nine; at most four (and each with a quarter of the load ). Solo/PG across all consoles can still share a BGS. This isn't about giving in to the sheer demands of each group that wants their own server, it's about whether the universe you see requires continuity. At present, changes can be made to the BGS from PG where one cannot be seen, and this contradicts true multiplayer because there's no continuity; I cannot barricade a station to stop someone UA bombing it, for instance. And if that's the way that PG players are happy to play, they can happily fight their galaxy's wars from the background like they desire - and would be better off for having all players affecting the same server, no matter PG/solo/console. When your changes revolve around activities you do specifically for the BGS, the more the merrier.

True multiplayer folks just want somewhere that continuity reigns; where you can make a difference by taking some form of initiative, rather than being one part of a few thousand people that happened to grind harder at an activity alone.

Nailed it.

 

[Gunnet]

No but systems are. And you should be able to defend the objectives against the people that are there. In more ways than a time vs time battle. Whom ever has the most time wins by default.

Systems are objectives for all players to fight over. They can be attacked, and they can be defended.

Complaining that group A can't beat group B unless they put in at least as much effort is just bizarre.

 

[Harley Quinn]

I agree with most of this honestly. The only thing that irks me is the BGS python and PVPErs, that was played correctly IMO. Defending their territory. Well, supposedly. That is what I'd like to see. You being in a wing for protection, you were a glass cannon. Squishy but able to make a large impact. You didnt do anything wrong. And neither did they.

As for the solo and private dudes. Man, I understand them wanting to be a part of something like that. But at the same time its an unfair advantage. Solo and private should only really be for personal progression. They are opting out of the multiplayer experience. If I played a game like LEague of legends with a bad connection, and Im speaking from experience here. Id get banned for ruining the multiplayer experience. Hindering my own team and the others. Thats not fair to anyone either. So I got a warning from Riot Games for ruining that gameplay. Same should go with combat logging.

The problem is Frontier is trying to cater to everyone, and all its doing is splitting the player base.

Now if they were defending their territory I would agree with you. But as it was in a system with a random CG next to mine and their home system is a fair few jumps away, it may have been an expected murder wing but nothing more than that as there were no comms at all and no attempt at anything other than a kill.

That is to be expected at any CG in open, but it was their justification for their game goals which they choose to publish online that made me laugh. Saying one thing while doing another deserves to be laughed at and questioned for the hypocrisy it is.

It is that hypocrisy and need to simply kill anybody to get another kill that gives the justification to CLoggers and modes use, to the expense of a PvP player honestly trying to defend their system (along with other PvP goals).

But I do agree that catering to everyone in every mode to do everything doesn’t work. No solution would be perfect and fair to all though. I would prefer things that impact on everybody to be open only. BGS against other players to be open if that is the declared mode of the defending PMF in control. It would penalise my friends who are forced to play solo because of internet issues, but as I said nothing would be fair to everybody.

But none of this is an excuse for CLogging, which is the thread question. I’m not about to start doing it because I got ganked again no matter what their motivation or public hypocrisy. And I will still play the BGS against others in a mode they can see me from as I agree that they should be able to try and stop me via all means available to them.

 

[WorldsGreatestForumDad]

Systems are objectives for all players to fight over. They can be attacked, and they can be defended.

Complaining that group A can't beat group B unless they put in at least as much effort is just bizarre.

I know it is bizarre. But its true. Wonder how I know that?

Now if they were defending their territory I would agree with you. But as it was in a system with a random CG next to mine and their home system is a fair few jumps away, it may have been an expected murder wing but nothing more than that as there were no comms at all and no attempt at anything other than a kill.

That is to be expected at any CG in open, but it was their justification for their game goals which they choose to publish online that made me laugh. Saying one thing while doing another deserves to be laughed at and questioned for the hypocrisy it is.

It is that hypocrisy and need to simply kill anybody to get another kill that gives the justification to CLoggers and modes use, to the expense of a PvP player honestly trying to defend their system (along with other PvP goals).

But I do agree that catering to everyone in every mode to do everything doesn’t work. No solution would be perfect and fair to all though. I would prefer things that impact on everybody to be open only. BGS against other players to be open if that is the declared mode of the defending PMF in control. It would penalise my friends who are forced to play solo because of internet issues, but as I said nothing would be fair to everybody.

But none of this is an excuse for CLogging, which is the thread question. I’m not about to start doing it because I got ganked again no matter what their motivation or public hypocrisy. And I will still play the BGS against others in a mode they can see me from as I agree that they should be able to try and stop me via all means available to them.

Well we dont have that, and thats why I am here. And I think thats whats coming with the guilds or squadrons. It would really add some depth to the game. And keep players interested while releasing slow rolling stuff like these thargoids you know? Still allowing solo and private modes for self progression. And being able to bring their self progression to the multiplayer part of this game at any time. Its still an opt in opt out.

While some of the game is not. If this gets fixed. Oh baby. We have a real game on our hands. Griefing would literally only be killing noobs in the starter system. And PVP would have meaning. You seen what it could be, on the losing side at that moment.

But so many groups with player interaction. Could be having lots of fun, planning strategic takeovers all sorts of stuff you know? Clogging has to go though first and foremost.

Here's hoping for the future of Elite Dangerous!

 

[Rampant]

No I dont.

So you refuse to acknowledge the truth?

That's fine, but even if you don't acknowledge it, the truth is still the truth.

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.

That's a gross over-simplification and you know it.

For many part-time gamers such as myself, who have limited leisure time, it is simply tedious to have to go to great lengths to gather the engineering materials, to gather the stuff required to unlock the engineers and to dedicate our gaming time to the tedious and dull endeavour of engineering a ship to be capable of withstanding a player interdiction and PK attempt. I too am smart. Just as smart as you. Let's just accept that each of us is of average intelligence. In fact, let's just consider the *same person* flying both sides...

In a contest between *YOU* flying your uber-engineered combat vessel and *YOU* flying a multi-role PvE and not significantly engineered ASP or PYTHON. Would *YOU* be able to interdict and PK *YOU* if you were flying defensively in the ASP or PYTHON??? Broaden that question to an A-rated Anaconda engineered with say G3 clean drives and Class 7A G3 reinforced shield with a couple of boosters...

Would *YOU* in your combat vessel be able to PK any of these ships when being flown also by *YOU*, or would *YOU* escape from *YOU* unscathed or with a bit of damage?


You see, I fly in Mobius and allow myself an *APPROPRIATE* challenge. Not highly engineered anything and using PvE build. I often have to escape from NPCs that I can't beat in 1V1 combat and sometimes at the cost of some damage. Not because I'm a bad player, but because this is the way I enjoy playing. Sure, if I flew the uber-engineered and defensive build ship that would be required to be safe Open, then playing in Mobius would be dull and tedious. But if I had the time to dedicate to uber-engineering then I probably would fly in Open.

This is a part of the basis why Combat Logging is an issue. There are clearly several tiers of CL. One of which is over-powered ships (often in wings) just going out to PK weaker built vessels. The absolute other end of the spectrum reason is the time-on-their hands PK player who uber-engineers a PK vessel, but who also isn't anywhere nearly as skilled as they think they are being equalled by a better skilled pilot they have chosen to try to kill because they are in a weaker vessel. The weaker vessel turning the tables also leads to a number of forum threads about CL, does it not?

In conclusion, Combat Logging and the Open/PG discussion is nowhere near as black and white as you make it out to be. Open need not be risky. Everybody agrees on this. But for beginner players and those without the time to dedicate to the game like most PvP players obviously do, then it is a game of tiers and this is why adding an extra Reward for Open is just asking for an imbalance. And to not acknowledge that truth is to kill your own argument publicly in front of the entire internet.

Cheerz

Mark H

 

[WorldsGreatestForumDad]

So you refuse to acknowledge the truth?

That's fine, but even if you don't acknowledge it, the truth is still the truth.





That's a gross over-simplification and you know it.

For many part-time gamers such as myself, who have limited leisure time, it is simply tedious to have to go to great lengths to gather the engineering materials, to gather the stuff required to unlock the engineers and to dedicate our gaming time to the tedious and dull endeavour of engineering a ship to be capable of withstanding a player interdiction and PK attempt. I too am smart. Just as smart as you. Let's just accept that each of us is of average intelligence. In fact, let's just consider the *same person* flying both sides...

In a contest between *YOU* flying your uber-engineered combat vessel and *YOU* flying a multi-role PvE and not significantly engineered ASP or PYTHON. Would *YOU* be able to interdict and PK *YOU* if you were flying defensively in the ASP or PYTHON??? Broaden that question to an A-rated Anaconda engineered with say G3 clean drives and Class 7A G3 reinforced shield with a couple of boosters...

Would *YOU* in your combat vessel be able to PK any of these ships when being flown also by *YOU*, or would *YOU* escape from *YOU* unscathed or with a bit of damage?


You see, I fly in Mobius and allow myself an *APPROPRIATE* challenge. Not highly engineered anything and using PvE build. I often have to escape from NPCs that I can't beat in 1V1 combat and sometimes at the cost of some damage. Not because I'm a bad player, but because this is the way I enjoy playing. Sure, if I flew the uber-engineered and defensive build ship that would be required to be safe Open, then playing in Mobius would be dull and tedious. But if I had the time to dedicate to uber-engineering then I probably would fly in Open.

This is a part of the basis why Combat Logging is an issue. There are clearly several tiers of CL. One of which is over-powered ships (often in wings) just going out to PK weaker built vessels. The absolute other end of the spectrum reason is the time-on-their hands PK player who uber-engineers a PK vessel, but who also isn't anywhere nearly as skilled as they think they are being equalled by a better skilled pilot they have chosen to try to kill because they are in a weaker vessel. The weaker vessel turning the tables also leads to a number of forum threads about CL, does it not?

In conclusion, Combat Logging and the Open/PG discussion is nowhere near as black and white as you make it out to be. Open need not be risky. Everybody agrees on this. But for beginner players and those without the time to dedicate to the game like most PvP players obviously do, then it is a game of tiers and this is why adding an extra Reward for Open is just asking for an imbalance. And to not acknowledge that truth is to kill your own argument publicly in front of the entire internet.

Cheerz

Mark H

Nah its pretty straight forward.

 

[[VR] Mad Mike]

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.

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

Stop kidding yourself.

the thing is, in open i may have to "put up" with someone like you.

but equally, if you are as good as you say you are, I could also get to play WITH someone like you, and 2 others as well... I am pretty sure such a wing would be pretty safe for the most part... OTOH the player in solo doesnt get to have any help at all, and is at the mercy of what ever the game throws at them.

arguably depending on your play style, for 99% of the time, Solo could well be the hardest mode in the game.

 

[GreyAreaUK]

It wouldn't take nine; at most four (and each with a quarter of the load ). Solo/PG across all consoles can still share a BGS.

Disagree - in fact even my suggestion of lumping all the PGs into one might prove contentious. I also don't think the server load would be significantly reduced - they've all got to be run for all the systems in the bubble (plus Colonia and a few other places). I strongly suspect it would just be too expensive and time consuming for a game that doesn't run on a monthly sub.

Incidentally, I completely agree that is sucks not being able to stop a UA bombing in Open if someone is doing it in Solo. I just don't think that there's a practical way of preventing such things.

 

[Rampant]

There are griefers and then there are those that are playing the game.

Often times people just throw the word griefer around any time someone stops them from completing a task.

When in reality the only griefing in Elite would be a fully engineered ship bangin out sidewinders.

If people want to oppose a community goal, great! If people want to pirate. Great! If people want to attack powerplay factions or another Groups BGS system. Do it in open with equal risk to everyone.

The bit in bold... As already said, there are players who consistently use "Oppose the CG" as a lie to justify their desired gameplay. As a perversion of the game, because they just want to attack other players and they will use any old lie to justify it.

They aren't really "OPPOSED to the CG". Not really. They travel to *ALL* CGs. To "Oppose" all of them. Which is demonstrably and factually ridiculous as a gameplay "reason". The "reason" is to attack other players.


Either:

1. I oppose this CG, therefore I am going to interdict players taking part. <- this would be a good gameplay reason.

Or:

2. I want to attack other players, therefore I will oppose this CG. <- ridiculous gameplay justification.

Im in colonia right now, Flying around. NO ONE IS OUT HERE IN OPEN. But people are pushing and pulling systems for territory like nobody's business. All vs other player groups. Again, why would people take the risks when they dont have to and get the same end result.

Fallacious reasoning.

There may be many players playing in Open on different platforms.

There may be many players playing at different times than you.

There may be players who you will never be Instanced with due to geographical constraints and network compatibility (even if on same platform and playing at the same time.)

There may be players who have you on their blocked list for any number of reasons.


Here Endeth the Lesson about platforms/modes/instancing/P2P networking/block lists and why enhancing any single mode's in-game "reward" is a predictable and demonstrable imbalance. (although it *might* be a lesson thqat needs to be repeated. Again.)


Cheerz

Mark H