I think that one of the OP's main points was not that combat loggers log because they don't want PvP, rather many log because, for whatever reason, they believe they cannot afford to lose their ship because of the severe death penalty. If people logged simply because they don't want PvP you would see no difference in the number of logs in beta vs. current build open (assuming it is a representative cross-section of the players). So the OP believes, as do I, that more people would engage in (relatively) consensual PvP if the penalty for failure were lowered. All the talk of "if you don't want PvP, play in private or solo" is not really on topic.
How to stop Combat Logging and make the game more FUN for all in open play.
- Thread starter Adam Gorst
- Start date
I just don't think reducing rebuy cost is the correct answer. For one thing, it can't really go much lower as it is. It's already 5%, what would be "low enough"? 1%? 0.5%? 0.001%? Free? Don't fly what you can't buy.
Though hey, if we want to take the game in the direction of "no rebuy cost", we could also combine it with instant transfers. When you log in, you'd be greeted by a flashy menu with high-tempo arcade music, and an enthusiastic announcer who yells "CHOOSE YOUR SHIP!" while you browse through all the ships you've ever bought.
Though hey, if we want to take the game in the direction of "no rebuy cost", we could also combine it with instant transfers. When you log in, you'd be greeted by a flashy menu with high-tempo arcade music, and an enthusiastic announcer who yells "CHOOSE YOUR SHIP!" while you browse through all the ships you've ever bought.
Where does that state that the dev beleive open = pvp
Uh... to recap, you said "if you don't like combat logging, make a PG and ban anyone who does it."
I said "Open is supposed to have that rule."
You asked "where does it say that?"
I showed you where it says that.
At no time in this exchange did I state that Open = PvP. I'm a PvE player.
Seeing as you brought it up though...
Open is a mode where you can encounter other players - by devs' intent.
Other players can shoot at you - by devs' intent.
Therefore PvP in Open is the devs' intent.
I just don't think reducing rebuy cost is the correct answer. For one thing, it can't really go much lower as it is. It's already 5%, what would be "low enough"? 1%? 0.5%? 0.001%? Free? Don't fly what you can't buy.
Though hey, if we want to take the game in the direction of "no rebuy cost", we could also combine it with instant transfers. When you log in, you'd be greeted by a flashy menu with high-tempo arcade music, and an enthusiastic announcer who yells "CHOOSE YOUR SHIP!" while you browse through all the ships you've ever bought.
And that would be different from players using this game now as an arcade shooter and killing everybody they encounter because they just like to kill the ships of other players?
In Open Mode this game currently is an arcade game and not a simulation.
I just don't think reducing rebuy cost is the correct answer. For one thing, it can't really go much lower as it is. It's already 5%, what would be "low enough"? 1%? 0.5%? 0.001%? Free? Don't fly what you can't buy.
Though hey, if we want to take the game in the direction of "no rebuy cost", we could also combine it with instant transfers. When you log in, you'd be greeted by a flashy menu with high-tempo arcade music, and an enthusiastic announcer who yells "CHOOSE YOUR SHIP!" while you browse through all the ships you've ever bought.
You are assuming that a monetary penalty is the only possible penalty for death. What if you couldn't fly you ship for an hour ... or two while it was being repaired? How many commanders would simply pay the rebuy to avoid that penalty? What if you were required to do some intricate recovery mission where you have to rent a hauler and go scoop up the pieces of your ship then pay for repairs costs. Say that took 1/2 hour to an hour. Many would believe that's a more severe penalty than simply paying to instantly get your ship back. In my opinion, recovery missions would be more immersive and place the same death penalty on all commanders.
Sweeping statements defining everyone's experiences as identical for the win!
I'm getting tired of posting this but here we go again:
I'm an exclusively-Open PvE player roleplaying as a SysSec officer and conducting lengthy patrols of LHS 3447 - you know, the starter system where all the gankers and griefers hang out? Before that I was a data runner. I have been ganked exactly once, during the CG to build a new station back in... February? March?
I grew up playing 90s space sims and trading games like I-War, Hardwar, and X-wing vs TIE Fighter, and flight sims like Combat Flight Simulator, Il-2, and Falcon 4.0.
This isn't to demonstrate my gaming credentials, it's just to provide context. If my game experience in ED was of 'an arcade game and not a simulation' I wouldn't have played beyond the first three hours, nor would I have bought Horizons on release day, nor would I be considering how to save up for better hardware in the long term specifically to keep running this game.
Last edited:
Context.
I replied to a posting about removing the re-buy cost would turn the game into an arcade game.
In Open Mode players playing as Imperial CMDRs fly around in Corvettes, federal CMDRs fly around in Cutters. Complete absence of anything I would call a logical crime and punishment system. Players can kill others for no in-game reasons.
Other players make the problems more obvious. In private groups the problems can be worked around by the members of that group. In open mode this is not possible. All players can play the way they want as long as it's allowed by the game (and the rules FD made).
Players can play ED in Open Mode as an arcade space shooter if they want. Nothing prevents them from doing so. Therefore using the argument that feature X would turn ED into an arcade game isn't that good.
At the same time players can play ED in Open Mode as a simulation. But the multiplayer aspect of this game is very arcady (in my opinion).
The ideal situation is that everybody plays together in PvP. PvE should be possible only for beginners. If a player interdicts you and you dont want to fight (dont deploy weapons) then the fight shoud not happen. If both deploy weapons then the fight shall happen and in this situation Clog will be useless because your ship will be destroyed anyway.
Totally agree with you there. I'd reeeally like it to be impossible to hold rank with more than one superpower simultaneously.
I just like to provide balance, it seems many players never even set foot in Open because of forum horror stories. I'll wind my neck in now
There is no crime and punishment that will improve the situation enough to lose credits to someone because they PK them....and there is no punishment made to stop Pk'ing...except for instadeath for shooting another commander. So nothing changes except that player HAVE to sit there and try to do something to save their skins from PK players...easier for most to avoid the headache.
I replied as I did because in post I replied to - you explicitly stated players could switch modes and that there were indeed three modes, for the purposes of avoiding pvp I assumed you meant solo and private as two of the three modes we could switch to.
Then you ended, in all caps, by "why is this not enough?". So while I of course take you at your word now, and that's fair enough for me - that you don't mean open = should be mandatory PvP, you DID say in the post I replied to that in essence we should a) switch modes to avoid pvp and b) why isn't those extra modes enough?
My answer is still the same - because while I personally think it is disgustingly cheap, if not outright 'cheating' to be the kind of jerk to engage in pvp, then run by combat logging (legal or otherwise as defined by FD) because they are losing -->
1- I have no issues with players who want to play in open for the social aspects without pvp forced upon them AND (key word being and statement here) with no reasonable recourse to avoid that combat with logging out (as long as they log out legally and did not engage in combat by firing weapons)
In short - if you engaged in combat, you should suck it up and take the loss if you are indeed losing.
2- But if you choose to NOT consent to engage in combat, you should never be told - go away loser, change modes because open = you auto consent to anyone pvp against you
Right now, I am totally fine with anyone engaging anyone in open - without asking first ,because it is the player's own damn fault if they didn't configure their own ship to protect themselves (which is why in any post I've written you'll see I've supported or told the unarmed,, unshielded merchant they are an idiot and their fault for insta-dying.
I completely agree if some pvp type one shots the unarmed merchant who didn't desire pvp, but died before they even had chance to run because they were an idiot and didn't arm defensively, that is no one's fault but the unarmed / unshielded merchant guy. So to be clear - I am not saying open should = white knight chivalry and both sides have to have elaborate conversation before engaging in combat.
Shoot away - but if the guy decides to run away right off, does not engage back, does not try to see if he can win but combat logs as a sore loser, then I completely support their right to avoid non-consensual pvp by the only two options they have in game right now:
-runaway immediately and use the good old boost-high wake escape move
-or combat log the legal and FD declared acceptable manner, timed menu logout BEFORE they try their luck and see if they can win (which again means their ship has to be shielded enough to take at least some hits or again, it is their own fault)
I expect both options to give the guy who wants to pvp a fairly poor success rate against those that do immediately one of the two above. But that is where I disagree with you apparently. Long as the person isn't being a sore loser, I don't see open = auto opting into every pvp engagement, aka mandatory pvp.
I, like you, don't encounter a lot of pvp in open. Heck, not a lot of encounters with commanders of any kind. But when combat does happen, usually me in my trade ships, or less frequently when in python or anaconda, I choose to fight or run. I am quite happy that FD has provided both paths as equally optional and available.
Therefore, I am definitely not expecting that no one will ever shoot at me. What I was commenting on is that regardless one expected it or not, there is today adequate means to escape - except some in the pro pvp crowd (not all, saying some) object to players avoiding non-consent pvp by using the FD approved combat log via menu.
Last edited:
Or just auto-shadow-ban everyone who is combat logging. If done in solo: add the rebuy cost as comnat logging against NPCs is even more pathetic than it currently is
That would be pretty good solution, and I'd certainly support that if FD ever wanted to put that in (since that would be a detectable means to ensure who to apply that mechanic too)
Restating your option as not quoted above (paraphrased) --> PvP should be possible only for those who want it. If player deploys hardpoints, block logging out for whatever duration seems reasonable (e.g. even 2-3 min would be fine; lots of MMOs have mechanics where after you logged out, your avatar still exists in game for some duration)
So player A who doesn't deploy hardpoints, can logout in approved FD manner via menu, his exposure is minimal and long as not adequately shielded, success rate to logout and avoid pvp is high.
Player B who decides to try and fight, starts losing and wants to log out as a sore loser = tough luck, you accepted combat, you deserve to die if you lose
I don't see how this option wouldn't make all sides happy except the camp that baldly wants to only kill those that don't want to engage in pvp (e.g. they get their kicks only by killing players who don't even want to try and fight, vs players who don't mind dying if they lose. I'd call that some kind of weird fetish but don't know the specific name for that fetish)
Restating your option as not quoted above (paraphrased) --> PvP should be possible only for those who want it. If player deploys hardpoints, block logging out for whatever duration seems reasonable (e.g. even 2-3 min would be fine; lots of MMOs have mechanics where after you logged out, your avatar still exists in game for some duration)
So player A who doesn't deploy hardpoints, can logout in approved FD manner via menu, his exposure is minimal and long as not adequately shielded, success rate to logout and avoid pvp is high.
Player B who decides to try and fight, starts losing and wants to log out as a sore loser = tough luck, you accepted combat, you deserve to die if you lose
I don't see how this option wouldn't make all sides happy except the camp that baldly wants to only kill those that don't want to engage in pvp (e.g. they get their kicks only by killing players who don't even want to try and fight, vs players who don't mind dying if they lose. I'd call that some kind of weird fetish but don't know the specific name for that fetish)
Last edited by a moderator:
What is combat logging? Never seen it. I do play in Mobius though.
*Chuckles in the background*
Ha! See, i can do it as well Gluttony.
OP - yeah, its an issue, but i'm not sure removing/lowering insurance cost is a solution either. It will just lead to probably even worse griefing and more combat logging. People won't be logging because of the cost, they will just get fed up with people doing stupid stuff wherever and whenever against them. Basically trading one negative thing for another.
You i think mentioned education though, and that could be a start. I'm sure there are some people out there who don't realize its bad form to combat log or do not care. A little shaming and notification could help.
For example, if you go to log off in combat, you get a message while you wait for the countdown:
"Please be aware that logging out during combat against another player is considered bad form. If you do not wish to experience PvP combat please consider playing in solo or a private group".
Yeah, of course, many will not care, but it might help a bit. At the end of the day, people who are not willing to face PvP simply shouldn't be playing in Open.
I feel this whole problem would massively go away if FD implemented a timeout from Open if you quit during PvP combat.
*Chuckles in the background*
Ha! See, i can do it as well Gluttony.
OP - yeah, its an issue, but i'm not sure removing/lowering insurance cost is a solution either. It will just lead to probably even worse griefing and more combat logging. People won't be logging because of the cost, they will just get fed up with people doing stupid stuff wherever and whenever against them. Basically trading one negative thing for another.
You i think mentioned education though, and that could be a start. I'm sure there are some people out there who don't realize its bad form to combat log or do not care. A little shaming and notification could help.
For example, if you go to log off in combat, you get a message while you wait for the countdown:
"Please be aware that logging out during combat against another player is considered bad form. If you do not wish to experience PvP combat please consider playing in solo or a private group".
Yeah, of course, many will not care, but it might help a bit. At the end of the day, people who are not willing to face PvP simply shouldn't be playing in Open.
I feel this whole problem would massively go away if FD implemented a timeout from Open if you quit during PvP combat.
But FD only have limited ways of knowing how that quit occurred - and they are simple, no - trivial - to fake
I'd even challenge FD's entire QA crew and their network analytics to a game of it
Did Aspy log or did something else go wrong? Oooohhh - the possibilities
Last edited:
The rebuy does nothing but punish the player and waste his time. It doesn't make the game any riskier or edgy.
What is combat logging? Never seen it. I do play in Mobius though.
*Chuckles in the background*
Ha! See, i can do it as well Gluttony.
OP - yeah, its an issue, but i'm not sure removing/lowering insurance cost is a solution either. It will just lead to probably even worse griefing and more combat logging. People won't be logging because of the cost, they will just get fed up with people doing stupid stuff wherever and whenever against them. Basically trading one negative thing for another.
You i think mentioned education though, and that could be a start. I'm sure there are some people out there who don't realize its bad form to combat log or do not care. A little shaming and notification could help.
For example, if you go to log off in combat, you get a message while you wait for the countdown:
"Please be aware that logging out during combat against another player is considered bad form. If you do not wish to experience PvP combat please consider playing in solo or a private group".
Yeah, of course, many will not care, but it might help a bit. At the end of the day, people who are not willing to face PvP simply shouldn't be playing in Open.
I feel this whole problem would massively go away if FD implemented a timeout from Open if you quit during PvP combat.
I am replying to you as a player, not a volunteer moderator as you clearly posted a personal opinion - not a moderation action.
I don't agree with your post at all, nor the name and shame part which you imply that anyone avoiding pvp = shameful.
If you had said anyone that engaged in combat or return combat - by either firing weapons or deploying hard points - then logged out via FD approved menu method to avoid losing as a 'sore loser' - then yes, I would totally agree, that is a person who accepted combat and shamefully avoided the consequence in rather cheap manner.
But what you are saying is open = should not run from pvp or logout from pvp even in FD approved manner.
That not only perpetuates the myth that FD believes and created open = pvp instead of open = pvp AND social aspects excluding pvp.
Clearly FD gave multiple means to avoid combat - a high success boost + high wake maneuver, and a timed logout method where success rate is high if adequately shielded and you choose to do so immediately before accepting combat and taking too much damage.
Until and unless FD posts that logging out of combat, even in approved menu timed manner, is NOT what open is intended to be, then you are merely stating a personal opinion and not the voice of a moderator or on behalf of FD.
That FD went out of their way to explicitly post how one may log out - even in combat, vs Alt-F4 log or other similar unintended means, contradicts your entire open = accept pvp statement and shame attached to one who runs via legal log out straight away.
Your auto message played to them in that scenario would play to both players who were being cheap (fight, lose, and logout to avoid losing) - as well as the players who didn't want even accept pvp in first place.
People who have discussed PvP as "consentual" anything are embarrassing. Actually embarrassing.
How is that so?
It's "consentual" in that other players wish to play with you. If they do not wish to play with you - you can expect a rapid and very effective non-consensual lulzbann to the face
"I used to be a PvPer like you, but then I took a router in the knee"
Last edited: