Doesn't it get old just playing alone? Personally, I prefer to have company
No... It's been months since I saw another CMDR or NPC... the life of the explorer.
How to stop Combat Logging and make the game more FUN for all in open play.
- Thread starter Adam Gorst
- Start date
No... It's been months since I saw another CMDR or NPC... the life of the explorer.
When I trundle into the bubble in a weary fragile T-6 with 50 mil in the databases, and anything north of a Sidey is a potential rebuy screen (never got gud, so this remains a challenge) I'm having a time. Having something to lose is great.
The rebuy never bothered me. I'm a cautious feller, never bought a new boat before I could afford many rebuys. And with the rebuy being as low as it is, never took that much longer.
If you log because you don't want to lose your rebuy, you're flying a more expensive boat than you can afford.
The rebuy never bothered me. I'm a cautious feller, never bought a new boat before I could afford many rebuys. And with the rebuy being as low as it is, never took that much longer.
If you log because you don't want to lose your rebuy, you're flying a more expensive boat than you can afford.
I keep hearing private group is the solution for people who don't what to deal with PVP so why not for people who don't like combat logging?
Doesn't it get old just playing with yourself? Personally, I prefer to have company
Agreed (seriously).
And it is actually pretty easy : make it profitable to lose your ship once in a while.
Which means extra $$$ in open. Which means upsetting the * die hard * soloers. Which would probably not be * that * bad. But good luck convincing FD of that.
Yeah, I drive a Bugatti, but I can't afford the insurance excess so I always pull over and stop when I see another car on the road.
ANALOGY'D
Agreed.
.
I ask myself though just how big a problem combat logging really is. Yes, for the PvPer affected by it, of course it's a big problem for that individual, especially if they see it several times in a session. But considering the size of the playerbase as a whole, how many players really are affected by combat logging? I have no idea, but I'm pretty confident that the PvP community is a minority (they might be a large minority though). Now, within that group, only a proportion will be regularly affected by combat logging in any given play session (presumably they won't combat log on each other, right?) - a fraction (of unknown size) of that minority. In addition, only a proportion of attack victims (and I say 'attack victims' as many attacks are not piracy at all when the sole objective is destruction of the target without consequences) will combat log. I can't help but think that combat logging is undertaken by a minority and only impacts a minority.
.
Add to that the matter of distinguishing genuine combat logging from legitimate disconnects (ie the former needs case-by-case investigation to determine a pattern of behaviour), and I'm just not convinced it's the 'huge' problem some make it out to be, nor that there's that much more Frontier can do without significant additional effort. Effort that's potentially disproportionate to the significance of the problem. I'm opposed to combat logging myself, as a general rule, but I'm also not sure I have much sympathy for the murderous anti-social types who delight in taking advantage of the lack of meaningful consequences for such assaults either........
I suspect it's the direct counterpart to "Open is full of griefers!" Those who experience it are angry. Angry people vocalise that emotion. Happy people just get on with spaceshipping*.
This means any forum or subreddit will have a preponderance of 'Clogging/gankers' threads.
*spaceship: to imagine romantic relationships between stellar bodies
You metaphored the heck out of that one
Yeah... but people still do those thread like "my mom won 5k $ at home in a week"... eerrr, I mean "I played in solo once and was great". And people bite the bait and go back to solo!!.
Ive thought for a long time that insurance needs looking at in ED. When you start out insurance payments even though low are significant but start to become less significant as you cross the 100million cr (liquid) mark before becoming meaningless by the time you hit 1B cr.
What I think is needed is a formula that considers gross assets and value of ship before applying a % reduction for rebuy. An example of this would be that a fully kitted out eagle would cost a new player 5% of full cost but would cost 100% to a billionaire. At the other end of the scale incredibly expensive vessels wouldn't be effected until the owner had a gross worth of 10's if not 100's of billions of credits. Obviously care would need to be undertaken to avoid over penalty, the line sliding scale should rise sharply so that you aren't over penalised.
As a byproduct, if you want to station "grief" (speed cops) then go ahead but its going to cost you 100% of the value every time.
What I think is needed is a formula that considers gross assets and value of ship before applying a % reduction for rebuy. An example of this would be that a fully kitted out eagle would cost a new player 5% of full cost but would cost 100% to a billionaire. At the other end of the scale incredibly expensive vessels wouldn't be effected until the owner had a gross worth of 10's if not 100's of billions of credits. Obviously care would need to be undertaken to avoid over penalty, the line sliding scale should rise sharply so that you aren't over penalised.
As a byproduct, if you want to station "grief" (speed cops
) then go ahead but its going to cost you 100% of the value every time.
Last edited:
I don't really think rebuy is the problem; the distraction of an unwanted encounter with completely OP engineered ships is. In the rare occasion I meet such opponents (really only happened twice), I just wait for the nonsense to be over, as I can afford the rebuy. Then, I move on to the game I actually play.
Rip engineers out of the game, and I might PvP in such encounters.
Never combat logged, though.
Rip engineers out of the game, and I might PvP in such encounters.
Never combat logged, though.
Only two things you can do to stop combat logging: Remove the ability of players to do combat or remove the ability of players to exit the game.
The second one isn't doable, the first one is tough that doesn't mean doing it would be a good Idea.
The second one isn't doable, the first one is tough that doesn't mean doing it would be a good Idea.
I think there could a misunderstanding.
Since the thread was about stoping combat logging by reducing re-buy or loss of the attacked player, I think it's save to assume that the "not losing" part was about no re-buy and not about combat logging.
What does a pirate lose if the trader doesn't lose anything from the pirate-trader interaction?
If the trader loses nothing by getting killed by an other player, then the trader might be willing to role play with a pirate and give the pirate some cargo (if the cargo is covered by an insurance). Nobody loses, both sides win.
It's the assumption that a player is only willing to give cargo if the threat is directly aimed at the player - loss of time/progress - that causes so much trouble in my opinion.
I think if players would stop forcing others to do things they don't want and instead play together a lot of problems would be minimized. There would still be those who would attack and then combat log if they lose, but it would - in my opinion - really help with players wanting to role play pirates vs. traders.
It all depends on the assumption that the primary motivation for player piracy isn't domination over other human beings. If that assumption on my part is wrong and pirates just want to bully other players, then there needs to be a loss for the trader.
To the OP: I think the re-buy cost should only be reduced if the ship destruction was caused by an other member of the Pilots Federation (an other player). It would offer an in-game explanation why the re-buy is lower: the PF covers the rest of the re-buy to keep their members happy and to avoid internal conflict.
Ive thought for a long time that insurance needs looking at in ED. When you start out insurance payments even though low are significant but start to become less significant as you cross the 100million cr (liquid) mark before becoming meaningless by the time you hit 1B cr.
What I think is needed is a formula that considers gross assets and value of ship before applying a % reduction for rebuy. An example of this would be that a fully kitted out eagle would cost a new player 5% of full cost but would cost 100% to a billionaire. At the other end of the scale incredibly expensive vessels wouldn't be effected until the owner had a gross worth of 10's if not 100's of billions of credits. Obviously care would need to be undertaken to avoid over penalty, the line sliding scale should rise sharply so that you aren't over penalised.
As a byproduct, if you want to station "grief" (speed cops
It's an interesting idea but a bit 'gamey' (that is, like a game, not deliciously rich-tasting meat) - it would suggest insurance companies refuse to insure rich people.
It suggests that the Pilots Federation stops subsidising your rebuy as you become more established
Last edited:
It's made more difficult to discuss a subject with people in various camps (strong pro, strong con, relatively neutral but willing to comment) when the subject name itself is in doubt.
e.g. "combat logging" -
a) are you referring to the act which FD has now stated is not intended, not supported, and while can't sanction it for various how-do-we-know reasons, is at least defined and admitted by FD as an 'exploit'?
aka - instant logging out in forced manner that shuts down ED program process via Alt-F4 or similar means.
b) are you referring to the act which FD has stated is perfectly fine, ok, acceptable, etc as means to exit any situation - whether combat, trade, just sitting in space, whatever?
aka - timed logging out via game menu that exits your ship from game in timed 'normal' logout
c) are you referring to any means of removing yourself from a combat scenario - whether allowed by FD or not - because your stance is that it is irrelevant whether FD officially approves or disapproves of how the logout was done?
aka - don't care what FD says, what anyone else says, anyone avoiding combat with me by exiting game via any method is a combat logger - period.
disclaimer- I'm in the middle; care enough to comment but don't really engage in enough pvp where I'd care if someone I was winning over got away via FD allowed timed or 'exploit' instant logout.
I am more the subject of attack when trading - but thus far when desiring to avoid combat (less and less since intro of buffed mines), haven't had serious issue escaping via usual boost-high wake technique. Take dmg yes, take every now and then a death, but infrequent enough not an insurance cost issue.
Bottom line of my comment is in threads like this - it gets all mixed up what people are talking about because ever since FD clarified this, we do indeed have an 'allowed' form of combat logging, and a 'exploit' form which FD has specifically defined. (plus the 3rd camp of so zealous against it, doesn't matter what FD has stated - but often they don't come out and say this - which in a way is avoiding the full scope of topic)
e.g. "combat logging" -
a) are you referring to the act which FD has now stated is not intended, not supported, and while can't sanction it for various how-do-we-know reasons, is at least defined and admitted by FD as an 'exploit'?
aka - instant logging out in forced manner that shuts down ED program process via Alt-F4 or similar means.
b) are you referring to the act which FD has stated is perfectly fine, ok, acceptable, etc as means to exit any situation - whether combat, trade, just sitting in space, whatever?
aka - timed logging out via game menu that exits your ship from game in timed 'normal' logout
c) are you referring to any means of removing yourself from a combat scenario - whether allowed by FD or not - because your stance is that it is irrelevant whether FD officially approves or disapproves of how the logout was done?
aka - don't care what FD says, what anyone else says, anyone avoiding combat with me by exiting game via any method is a combat logger - period.
disclaimer- I'm in the middle; care enough to comment but don't really engage in enough pvp where I'd care if someone I was winning over got away via FD allowed timed or 'exploit' instant logout.
I am more the subject of attack when trading - but thus far when desiring to avoid combat (less and less since intro of buffed mines), haven't had serious issue escaping via usual boost-high wake technique. Take dmg yes, take every now and then a death, but infrequent enough not an insurance cost issue.
Bottom line of my comment is in threads like this - it gets all mixed up what people are talking about because ever since FD clarified this, we do indeed have an 'allowed' form of combat logging, and a 'exploit' form which FD has specifically defined. (plus the 3rd camp of so zealous against it, doesn't matter what FD has stated - but often they don't come out and say this - which in a way is avoiding the full scope of topic)
It suggests that the Pilots Federation stops subsidising your rebuy as you become more established
Oh yeah, right! Cool.
I dont know what you just said. But I appreciate your avatar. +1