And in 6 months when no one is in the game in open because they have all been banned you will be right here complaining again.
How to stop Combat Logging and make the game more FUN for all in open play.
- Thread starter Adam Gorst
- Start date
And in 6 months when no one is in the game in open because they have all been banned you will be right here complaining again.
It's nice to be a Solo "carebear" and not a combat he-man; almost none of these...turbulent threads...concern me a whit.
Like to see everyone happy though (that's the carebear in me I guess) but I highly doubt it will ever happen. People...
Like to see everyone happy though (that's the carebear in me I guess) but I highly doubt it will ever happen. People...
You mis-read this earlier post then. Read it in full - the exploit they refer to is logging out via "ungracefully exits the game (e.g. using ALT + F4 then shutting down the game process)"
This method of logging out, to avoid dmg or destruction is what FD stated in 2015 (linked post). However, wish I could find it, but they posted follow up thread in which they further explained logging out via regular menu method (with timer) was ok under any scenario including combat. And that only unintended and undesired exploit was instant-logging out via Alt-F4 or other process termination means.
not the act of legally logging out of game via menu (which they posted a later thread on specifically mentioning difference between
Yup. I've posted it a few times over the last few days and you're the first person who's actually read it and made the obvious response rather than either ignoring it or dismissing it out of hand - "an off-hand comment in an obscure post," for example.
I was just curious whether people were actually considering counter-arguments or (potential) evidence that conflicted with their views
The way the game is designed you can't stop combat logging without punishing people that legitimately break connection, which happens to a lot of people for various reason.
Yup. I've posted it a few times over the last few days and you're the first person who's actually read it and made the obvious response rather than either ignoring it or dismissing it out of hand - "an off-hand comment in an obscure post," for example.
I was just curious whether people were actually considering counter-arguments or (potential) evidence that conflicted with their views
Despite length of this thread, it has actually helped me to better word my views, so I'll thank the polite people even if on other side of debate. I admit using consentual and nonconsentual pvp terms confuse the issue.
So summing my better worded view is simply -->
I think Open should be, and is for all. I think Open = accepting the risk you may be fired upon and take damage, even if you never intend to fight or pvp.
As one that prefers not to do much pvp, I think above is a fair acceptance of playing open even if primary goal is social interaction vs pvp. Basically, open does mean you are opting into every pvp fight, but you are opting into being prepared to fight OR run - and you must have an adequately armed / defended enough ship to viably allow either option.
So that said, I have 3 simple scenarios that encompass my view
1- if you don't arm / defend your ship well enough - then whether you are a pure combat or pure trader type, the only fault is yours is someone blows you away instantly before any chance to escape.
2- if you DO arm / defend your ship enough - all players should have some viable mean(s) of escape to avoid pvp
*today this means boost + high wake jump (no mass lock possible)
*or boost + wait for menu logout in FD approved fashion to take some risk but still logout safely if you are shielded enough
3- if you CHOOSE to accept combat, whether returning fire or even merely deploying hard points - I support any and all changes needed to make running after this point much, much harder. (e.g. add a longer logout timer, longer high wake timer, if weapons fired recently)
If you accept combat, then decide to run - whether because sore loser as you start to lose - or just change your mind - sorry, while I personally am not what I'd say is a pvp'er, if you accept combat, you take the consequence of it and take the death (e.g. graceful loser).
The reason this issue keeps coming up is people are mixing up players in #1 and 2, with those in #3.
I don't play open to pvp, but I bear the responsibility to defend my ship enough so I have option to run, anything else is crying over your own fault.
Same for if you return fire or accept combat - take the death, don't be a sore loser, you chose to accept combat
But where it goes off the rails is when some, not all or even many, some players insist that no one be able to escape when choosing to play open because if they escape, even by legal means, that means 'carebear', 'cheater', etc etc
Last edited:
Last edited:
these threads are pointless. There are a number of players who have no morals, no sense of principle and no fear for repercussions for their actions. Such players normally would be culled by the developer for cheating but the developers dont care enough to do anything about it. So they continue to exist like a cancer in a mode that they obviously have no interest in actually being in.
It all comes back to enforcement of the rules. Since there is none, it's kind of a pointless discussion. FD cares more about piling more features on the game rather than honing what exists.
The combat loggers know they're less of a player than even those that prey on the weak. Take heart in that they probably justify cheating and taking the easy way out of lots of things in their lives. Because it's a weakness of personality that causes a person to cheat in a game for their own gain. Doubly so for them to not own it and try and justify it.
It all comes back to enforcement of the rules. Since there is none, it's kind of a pointless discussion. FD cares more about piling more features on the game rather than honing what exists.
The combat loggers know they're less of a player than even those that prey on the weak. Take heart in that they probably justify cheating and taking the easy way out of lots of things in their lives. Because it's a weakness of personality that causes a person to cheat in a game for their own gain. Doubly so for them to not own it and try and justify it.
Isn't that a bit extreme?
There is no "a lesser player" or "a more worthy player" in Space Pixel Games. If someone got someone else so incredibly upset over a video game - I'd say it's game, set, and match to the one still laughing
There is no "a lesser player" or "a more worthy player" in Space Pixel Games. If someone got someone else so incredibly upset over a video game - I'd say it's game, set, and match to the one still laughing
Isn't that a bit extreme?
There is no "a lesser player" or "a more worthy player" in Space Pixel Games. If someone got someone else so incredibly upset over a video game - I'd say it's game, set, and match to the one still laughing
true, someone truly butt hurt over a cheater combat logging isn't really coming out on top. I dont get angry at that. I am just disappointed. Not at the single instance. But how often it's seen across this game and others and in life in general.
an entire culture of entitled cry babies with skin too thin that words hurt and they're always right.
If you can't play by the rules in a simple game where you lose nothing then you have no integrity. I dont take it personally that someone may combat log or use a ram hack cheat against me. I understand that that person feels the need to supplement their inadequacies with cheats because they fail at being able to play the game. I blame the developers for allowing it to happen. I dont rage quit because of it. I just play on.
It's not extreme. Someone who cheats with nothing at stake is someone who will definitely cheat with something at stake and in either case. They're a lesser person because of it. Meh. Either way it's not hurting me because my gameplay consists of repeating the same action over and over again because FD has made the single most common part of the game (traveling) the least developed and interactive part of the game. Now if you could figure out why someone would design a game that centered around travel but made travel the most mundane tedious and boring set of repetitive actions you could imagine then you would in fact be a certified genius and should probably take over whoever's job it is at heading the game development.
ps. I've traveled over 170k ly at 25ly a jump in the past 2 months. It makes playing NMS seem like an exciting action adventure game brought to you by the minds behind bioshock and borderlands in comparison. Some mouth breathers having to combat log because they can't possibly handle losing is not an issue for me. And I'm always in open. i'm risking months and thousands of systems of exploration. Utopians dont run. I'll be back to civilization soon. In open. Without cheating heat weapons. Bring it.
Bring what? Do some people honestly believe that their game time is somehow more worthy than the game time of others? Is playing in one mode somehow superior? Is boasting about non-existent non-accomplishments really something people desire?
Pandering to whiners is just about, but not quite, as exciting as waiting for the completion of a "Bring me a nail" mission in Progress Quest.
Endlessly entertaining though! My lulzbucket continues to fill up
Pandering to whiners is just about, but not quite, as exciting as waiting for the completion of a "Bring me a nail" mission in Progress Quest.
Endlessly entertaining though! My lulzbucket continues to fill up
The problem is that what do people consider a waste of time and what's the limit of it.
A) The combat logger activists believe that anything doesn't go the exact way they want, they'll log and disregard any custom or other people being affected by it. These people lack empathy for others or in general weren't taught respect when they were young. These people have no integrity nor character of any sort other than being narcissistic scum that contributes nothing to the game other than detriments.
B) The combat logger activists believe they are entitled to an Open PvE mode, and thus abuses and exploits the game to make Open mode Open PvE mode. These people are just inconsiderate since Open mode is where everyone meets everyone, there will be friendly people and there will be not so friendly people.
C) The combat logger activists believe they are to define what is acceptable hostile interaction and what is not, and will enforce this by utilizing exploits despite that it undermines the game in general. These people are somewhere between A and B depending on the criteria.
On the other side of the picture:
A) The player interaction seekers believe that causing discomfort to others or getting an reaction out of another player is their sole source of entertainment. These people lack empathy for others or in general weren't taught respect when they were young. These people have no integrity nor character of any sort other than being narcissistic scum that contributes nothing to the game other than detriments.
B) The player interaction seekers believe that as long as it is an advantage that they have over other player, they will utilize it to make other players their "content (in the context of attempting to dominate)." This can include and is not limited to utilizing exploits, cheats, etc. These people just want to "win," in a game that doesn't really define "winning." They don't really intend on "griefing" other players, they just want to have fun and don't care about the rules or social norms and customs. The ones that use exploits and cheats in this category have no integrity nor character of any sort other than being narcissistic scum that contributes nothing to the game other than detriments.
C) The player interaction seekers believe there is common courtesy even in hostile interactions. However, after verbal abuse and/or utilization of logging, these players lose faith and become either A or B.
Former camp is just people who never read Plato's Crito, or just don't understand the concept that two wrongs don't make a right.
Latter camp is just people that give into their human nature to the extent beyond what is acceptable in "social norm," and reasonably so.
Former camp will be alleviated when crime and punishment gets updated to deal with the latter camp's A and B to prevent C from looping.
Latter camp will be dissolved when former camp dissipates into a low number.
And the saddest thing of all, only FD can solve this issue mechanically.
Last edited:
In summary: CL'ers are scum. Griefers are misunderstood scamps.
Finely diced. Finely diced.
No .-.
People in the latter camp for A and B are just as inconsiderate as people in the former camp in general. I can relate to latter camp's C group since I watched it happen right before my eyes with SDC coming out of The Code, and I really can't bring myself to blame them. Not that what they're doing is "right".
I invite you to go back and reread the post I commented on. Look at the treatment you offered for each of the archetypes you created. Concerning yourself with the divide above and below the line "On the other side of the picture:" What do you see?
I just explained that they're pretty much the same o.o
Both have different levels of disregard for other people.
Edit:
Also to make clear, former camp group A is pretty much the same as latter camp group B, you can exchange their description if that makes it easier to understand .-.
Last edited:
You can't see the ridiculous bias between 1.A) "These people have no integrity nor character of any sort other than being narcissistic scum that contributes nothing to the game other than detriments." and 2.A) "These people lack empathy for others or in general weren't taught respect when they were young."? If as you say, they are pretty much the same, one would suspect you treat them pretty much the same.
One side of the line it's all narcissistic scum, and on the other their parents are to blame. If you can have empathy for one group of wrong doers, why so vindictive of the other?
First of all, I just explained that you can exchange their descriptions.
Second of all, I am sympathetic toward a sub group of the latter camp, and it's a very specific subgroup for a very specific reason, please read.
Why bother writing for both sides of an argument, if you can only see it from one side? Unless you're not interested in a comparison, but rather a chance to take a colorfully worded swipe at the Griefers you don;t support. It makes the whole attempt suspect.
Last edited:
Or maybe you were reading with a bias .-.?
See? I can speculate that, as well, and it will spiral down a nonsensical confirmation bias or something asinine of that sort.
Take my word for it, both sides are inconsiderate, exchange their description as much as you like, I listed them to distinguish the different kinds of inconsiderate players in ED (that is germane to the topic).
Edit:
Also that I made it clear why I am sympathetic toward one subgroup of a camp for what reason. In fact I am sympathetic of those that kept getting blown up for no apparent reason and started logging out of fear, now that I think about it.
Last edited: