How to stop Combat Logging and make the game more FUN for all in open play.

[jacozilla]

People who have discussed PvP as "consentual" anything are embarrassing. Actually embarrassing.

What's embarrassing is you are voluntarily identifying yourself as one who only gets their jollies killing players who didn't want to even try fighting.

Kill a player who engaged in return combat - awesome. If they engaged then tried to run or successfully logged out to avoid the loss --> that is cheap, is cheating, and I'd support any mechanic that makes that avoidable (e.g. additional timer on logout if fired weapons recently)

But say you support or only want / like killing players who wish to not engage in pvp at all, that makes you a bully and sociopath in my book. You get your jollies inflicting harm on others who dare to want other reasons to play open.

What's odd is you'll reply right back that I am some carebear that doesn't support pvp at all. I do support pvp - and anyone that wants to duck the consequence of losing has no sympathy in my book.

But cretins that literally only get their jollies killing players that don't want pvp? It's embarrassing how easily you identify as a griefer.

 

[Loskene]

I don't believe reducing rebuy will have any major impact on combat logging. It might set straight a small few who do it but feel dirty about it, but it'll have no impact on those who do it out of a sense of entitlement or cowardice, which I believe makes up the vast majority of combat loggers.
It's against the rules, plain and simple. If you combat log, you should be banned, if not from the entire game then at least from open mode. Why? Because it's cheating, on no uncertain terms, and cheating in a multiplayer game is absolutely unacceptable.
The very act of logging into open mode signifies your consent to engage in PVP, and that you tacitly accept all the caveats therein. If you don't want to engage in PVP, then you should go to private or solo. I feel like that should be a disclaimer shown before anyone logs in to open for the first time, so there can be no misunderstanding.

However, punitive actions are reactionary by nature, and as such it does little to disincentivise combat logging to begin with. So in order to fix the problem we need to address the reasons people combat log. Some people are incorrigible and will just do it because they want to, but there are some who derive a twisted sense of legitimacy from the lack of a robust crime and punishment system. While I cannot in good conscience approve of their methods and will reject any attempt at legitimising or normalising the act of combat logging, I do agree that there is very little to disincentivise random acts of murder.

If the crime and punishment system is overhauled to a point where it has a negative impact on anyone who goes around killing people for no reason, it should reduce the amount of ganking (I will not use the term griefing since nobody here seems to actually know what that means) and strip away the veneer of legitimacy some uphold as a reason to continue combat logging. There are many ways to do this that have been brought up already, and I won't bother reiterating them here, but if the universe becomes a more hostile place for murderous psychopaths (which is a legitimate "career" option, don't forget) most of them should be turned off it and the few who keep it up will at least be accepting the risks in doing so.

If killers accept they can't keep killing without any form of payback, and loggers accept they can't always have PVP their way, then we'd move towards reducing instances of both to mere edge cases, as opposed to the status quo they currently inhabit.


PS. Give cargo ships some defences for god's sake, that's half the problem right there. More hull hitpoints across the board would be a good start.

 

[jacozilla]

PS. Give cargo ships some defences for god's sake, that's half the problem right there. More hull hitpoints across the board would be a good start.

I've clearly identified myself as being against non-consentual pvp (e.g. ok to run before engaging in return combat, but if you return fire - you should be blocked from logging out safely as that is a cheap method to avoid the consequence of losing)

But come on - you're going way to far here in other edge case. I run cargo as one of couple primary ways I play too - and there is no way you can say cargo ships don't have adequate defenses --> if you choose to not be an idiot and run unshielded, unarmored cargo ships.

Either pure cargo ships - T6, T7, or T9 - or trade builds of python, tradeconda, etc - can spec to adequate shields, even an SCB as extra insurance. Yes - this squeezes into cargo room and max cr per hour/ton profits, but that is a choice you/I as cargo master makes.

I have zero sympathy - and neither should any player who likes to play as pirate - for any trader that chooses to run unshielded or defenses so light (no chaff, no PD, not enough shields or booster), that they get blown away before being able to escape.

Any veteran trader should know they can't get mass locked by high wake escape - only SC is mass locked. So literally, you only need to live long enough for the high wake count down - or the timed menu logout manner approved by FD.

Both are high success ratio means to avoid dying - IF you have shielded cargo ships. Even without shield booster, a decent sized A rated shield is all you need to make most interdictions survivable by either escape tactic.

If you choose to run unarmored and unshielded enough that you do die instantly before high wake or timed logout, that is your own choice to spec that way. I support players who wish to play open without pvp because there is a means to escape pvp today - very adequate means. If you choose to not take advantage of these game provided means, that is your own fault.

Stop asking for additional cargo ship defenses as if it wasn't adequate enough. More hull hitpoints is not needed when all you need to do is add the shields you can already get - in decent size based on how often you die. e.g. you may need to suck it up and add that 5A shield, not the minimal 3D to avoid hull scrape on station docking.

One extreme of this debate is the type that says no player should ever have means to not engage in pvp (e.g. the bully that only gets jollies killing players who don't want pvp and didn't return fire at all), but the other extreme is what you are asking for here - to buff non-pvp types even more when there is perfectly adequate means today.

 

[Loskene]

all that     

Look mate, I'm not a cargo pilot so I'll defer to your expertise on that one. I just brought it up as an afterthought since one of the complaints from the logging crowd tends to be that they get blown up flying defenceless cargo ships all the time. If you say that's their own damn fault, then fair enough, I'm not gonna argue a point with nothing to back it up. I suggested hull hitpoints over shields since many pirates say they tend to just blow up before you can disable modules or work the cargo hatch, but if you don't think any buffs are necessary that's fine too.

I don't get what you mean by nonconsentual pvp though. If you're in open you consent. That's all there is to it.

 

[Asp Explorer]

If you're in open you consent. That's all there is to it.

Indeed.

If you play in open - you consent to being the laughing stock of certain people who will manipulate your connection to them, make things look like you are doing naughty things, arrange things so it appears you combat log on them, report you to FD with video evidence, and then luzbann you fun

 

[Loskene]

Indeed.

If you play in open - you consent to being the laughing stock of certain people who will manipulate your connection to them, make things look like you are doing naughty things, arrange things so it appears you combat log on them, report you to FD with video evidence, and then luzbann you fun

Maybe I've been awake too long but... what in bejaysus are you on about?

 

[Asp Explorer]

Maybe I've been awake too long but... what in bejaysus are you on about?

It's really very simple. For the game to work, you need to connect to someone elses computer. What they do with their computer is entirely outwith your control.

 

[Alex Brentnall]

It's really very simple. For the game to work, you need to connect to someone elses computer. What they do with their computer is entirely outwith your control.

I think the paranoia is a little high if you believe someone will edit their own network settings to fake a combat log just to report you for cheating. Besides I expect it'd be easy enough for FDev to check the server logs and realise that you activated FSD and flew into another instance (SC or HS) within 60 seconds of the supposed combat log. (Which presumably you would after the enemy ship disappearance and loss of P2P connection). Not even the supercomputers can logout/login that fast so FDev can assume there was a break-down somewhere not your fault.
Also you are assuming that FDev will act on a single report. Also how many people could 1 player report before FDev realise it's on that players end not all the people they are reporting?

Just saying chill really, you have a point somewhere in there but the levels at which everyone here is taking this is quite funny really. We started with "Would insurance being lowered also lower C-logging?" and now we are with players hacking the networking to forge fake videos of clogging!

 

[jacozilla]

Look mate, I'm not a cargo pilot so I'll defer to your expertise on that one. I just brought it up as an afterthought since one of the complaints from the logging crowd tends to be that they get blown up flying defenceless cargo ships all the time. If you say that's their own damn fault, then fair enough, I'm not gonna argue a point with nothing to back it up. I suggested hull hitpoints over shields since many pirates say they tend to just blow up before you can disable modules or work the cargo hatch, but if you don't think any buffs are necessary that's fine too.

I don't get what you mean by nonconsentual pvp though. If you're in open you consent. That's all there is to it.

Not claiming to be an expert at super high level or somehow with no odds of being wrong, but I've flown for good periods all the cargo ships (T6, T7, T9) and trade build versions of most popular multiroles (Python and Anaconda) pre-engineers.

In post-engineers world, T9-TradePython-Tradeconda --> 5A or 6A shields, with no shield boosters but with chaff and point defense is all that is needed for very, very high escape odds via high wake escape which can't be mass locked. By very high, I would say I've personally been interdicted ~12 times since engineers launched.

I have escaped all 12 times in one of the 3 popular trade ships above by boosting, taking few hits, few shield rings knocked off, but then high waking away. I completely accept couple of these may have been luck, but not 12 of 12 because I am a better than avg pilot but not by any means close to the best.

So I conclude that non-trade ships would have even better chance, so unless traders or non-traders are stupidly flying non-shielded or something so small like 3A shields on a 6A rated ship (which used to be the meta back in the days of maxing out pure credit per ton per hour formulas), it their own fault for dying so fast they don't even have chance to escape.

By non-conconsentual pvp - I should clarify that it doesn't exist at the moment, just talking theoretically when someone says no one should have even a chance at escaping.

Since I am clearly saying avoiding pvp DOES exist in open at the moment, I am totally fine with open as it is today. Period.

Anyone that plays open - either dies because they haven't learned enough or chose to be stupid because they ran a poorly specced ship. As high success ratio escape methods exist as long as your are adequately shielded (and that means keeping up with the Jones, since we are now in post-engineers world, that means you need modded shields to increase chance to escape from modded weapons), there is really no nonconsentual pvp at moment.

Unless of course you are in the camp that says any means of running should be blocked. And right now there are two high success means of escaping pvp in open-
1- boost, high wake away (requires decent shields and choice to submit to interdiction, boost away immediately - don't try and fight, be a sore loser, then run)

2- boost and log out via timed menu (requires taking a few hits, log out safely) - again, if you choose to fight, start to lose, then use menu logout --> I have many times stated I agree this is cheap, is cheating, and any method to block this from happening I fully support (e.g. longer logout timers if fired weapons recently)

But - bottom line is no, I don't agree that players are opting in automatically and consenting to all pvp just by merely logging into open. They should, and do today, have options to run. The issue I take is when players of other side advocate there should be ZERO viable options to run and avoid that pvp.

 

[Asp Explorer]

Just saying chill really, you have a point somewhere in there but the levels at which everyone here is taking this is quite funny really. We started with "Would insurance being lowered also lower C-logging?" and now we are with players hacking the networking to forge fake videos of clogging!

That all depends on which meta you are gaming

 

[horizone]

Imho, there need to be something more to death than: 1. boom - 2. insurance payment - 3. back to last station. There should be some exciting gameplay upon death like for example escape pod gameplay, suddenly turning Elite into a survival game for a few minutes. When you succeed to survive there are benefits like experience gain and maybe less insurance cost and a couple of scars unlocked in the upcoming avatar designer. Combat loggers would miss out completely.

 

[Loskene]

Just saying chill really, you have a point somewhere in there but the levels at which everyone here is taking this is quite funny really. We started with "Would insurance being lowered also lower C-logging?" and now we are with players hacking the networking to forge fake videos of clogging!

Eh the thread seemed to be doing alright in terms of relaxed, productive discussion, before he came along and turned the crazy level from 0 to 100 in a single post. Maybe best to just quietly move on and pretend it never happened.

 

[Agony_Aunt]

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

I'd say it shouldn't matter. I'm not talking about applying a punishment per se, people can still play, just not in Open for a while. Kind of educate them that combat logging from PvP is not something that is not good.

With a bit of history tracking, it could be made so that the more it happens, the longer the duration.

Therefore, first time it happens, lock them out for 5 mins. It just sends a message without serious punishment. Next time it happens, lock them out for an hour. Next time 1 day. Next time 1 week. etc.

Basically, if, as might be, someone is having such connectivity issues, so that they are regularly disconnecting during PvP (through no fault of their own!) then they should be contacting FD support, and not playing Open until they get a resolution to their problem.

 

[Alex Brentnall]

Imho, there need to be something more to death than: 1. boom - 2. insurance payment - 3. back to last station. There should be some exciting gameplay upon death like for example escape pod gameplay, suddenly turning Elite into a survival game for a few minutes. When you succeed to survive there are benefits like experience gain and maybe less insurance cost and a couple of scars unlocked in the upcoming avatar designer. Combat loggers would miss out completely.

To be honest I liked the idea of NMS with the whole repair your ship thing, in Elite this could be done planetside or in space EVA, presumably take a fair amount of time and not be a 100% cert, maybe have yourself on a life support ticker meaning you have to repair and get back to base in time (I don't think danger of loosing your ship should be removed entirely). Just need to ensure the mechanics are more to do with repairing and not blasting space rocks to make X of something and it'd mean A grade life support is a winner again.

Edit: TIme for work, see you in 9 hours and probably 3 pages

 

[Badben]

good post OP, nicely put without being rude. I do think rebuy cost has something to do with combat logging. I have to admit, I like Beta a lot because it feels more free. I do wish I could do more PvP, but my ship of choice is an anaconda with a rebuy of 23 million, that's too much for me to lose on a regular basis.

But what I also think has an effect on combat logging, is the totally unbalanced nature of many of the fights. It's very easy to completely outmatch someone in this game, especially if they have a ship that isn't built for combat, and even if they do, simply bringing more people to the fight is basically instant win. It's extremely easy if you have a group of people to completely wreak havoc on single players, and these encounters don't feel good for the person getting killed, it feels completely unfair, because it is completely unfair, the person getting killed most of the time has 100% chance of death.

I think a lot of people combat log specifically as a revenge tactic in these situations. the loggers are thinking "if you guys are going to play completely unfairly, then so will I" then they log out. Logging at that moment actually feels good because you know your aggressors will be angry. Then everyone comes on the forums and says boohoo, people are combat logging.

The way I see it, as long as the game allows griefing, it will have combat logging, you can't have one without the other. Griefing is specifically getting pleasure out of others pain, schadenfreude if you will, and to have this, someone needs to feel the pain. But people don't play the game to feel pain, they play it to feel good, so they combat log.

If you want to get rid of combat logging, get rid of griefing.

 

[Agony_Aunt]

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.

I think you failed to understand my point. The shaming wouldn't be public. It would simply be a message on their screen informing them that logging during combat with another player is considered bad form.

As for logging from menu being approved or not. Yes, it is accepted by FD. High waking out is actually a better technique than menu logging and doesn't cause the same upset, although it can be foiled with the right technique as well... menu log cannot be foiled besides someone killing you quickly.

But, i digress, yes, FD allow it and are not willing to call it an exploit. That is ok in my books. But it does generate a lot of complaints. Therefore I (and i think most people) would be happy if FD could do something that would encourage people to play in the mode they are best suited to playing in.

If you are not willing to risk PvP, why would you play in a mode where PvP is possible? Seems rather silly to me.

 

[Saool]

It's a nice stab at it OP, but I think you are wrong. People cheat because they don't like to lose. I think you could reduce the penalty for death to nothing and people would still combat log. People keep fighting in beta because it is beta. They don't feel it is 'real'.

For traders, you might be right as they do have more to lose and will probably consider the pvp non consensual, but then you are back to the 'why are you playing in open if you don't like it' question. But pvpers will not care about the money. For them it will be an ego issue.

 

[Loskene]

But - bottom line is no, I don't agree that players are opting in automatically and consenting to all pvp just by merely logging into open. They should, and do today, have options to run. The issue I take is when players of other side advocate there should be ZERO viable options to run and avoid that pvp.

When I say that one consents to PVP when they log into open, I mean including the options to run away if they so choose. That is part of PVP, doing a Brave Sir Robin is a viable and prudent tactic if either the tide of battle turns against you, or you aren't in a position to fight to begin with. I don't believe it should be impossible to escape, as escaping is a very important part of the game. This only extends as far as using the game mechanics though; combat logging is verboten, and menu logging, while not strictly against the rules, is generally frowned upon in honourable combat. Everyone should be free to power up their frameshift and get the hell out of dodge if the need be. There's no rule that says you have to fight to the death every time someone wants a go at you.

 

[jacozilla]

I'd say it shouldn't matter. I'm not talking about applying a punishment per se, people can still play, just not in Open for a while. Kind of educate them that combat logging from PvP is not something that is not good.

With a bit of history tracking, it could be made so that the more it happens, the longer the duration.

Therefore, first time it happens, lock them out for 5 mins. It just sends a message without serious punishment. Next time it happens, lock them out for an hour. Next time 1 day. Next time 1 week. etc.

Basically, if, as might be, someone is having such connectivity issues, so that they are regularly disconnecting during PvP (through no fault of their own!) then they should be contacting FD support, and not playing Open until they get a resolution to their problem.

In order for this temporary ban on open play to happen, FD would need to
a) retract their prior statement that logging out via acceptable timed menu is no longer intended nor ok
b) remove the menu logout method or add a much longer timer to either exit or keep your ship avatar still in game for X minutes even after your local connection is severed

I am ok with both, but it would need to be clearly communicated by FD as the new, intended behavior.

Since they have not, and in fact done the opposite - you are advocating as a volunteer moderator an action to temporarily ban -some- players from open for doing exactly what FD says is ok (e.g. logging out in accepted menu manner)

I agree -some- players are choosing to engage in return combat, and then when losing --> seek to avoid the consequence of accepting combat and being a sore loser/cheater by logging out. There should clearly be some mechanic implemented to discourage and reduce this.

But -some- players immediately boost, run, and log out in manner FD says is ok. Your temporary ban on open proposal would catch these players along with those that deserve it.

Do you care you net both player types? Or are you saying it doesn't matter if you did not wish to engage in combat, never deployed hardpoints, never returned fire, and simply ran immediately, logged out in FD approved manner, but should still be temp banned for it?

- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -

When I say that one consents to PVP when they log into open, I mean including the options to run away if they so choose. That is part of PVP, doing a Brave Sir Robin is a viable and prudent tactic if either the tide of battle turns against you, or you aren't in a position to fight to begin with. I don't believe it should be impossible to escape, as escaping is a very important part of the game. This only extends as far as using the game mechanics though; combat logging is verboten, and menu logging, while not strictly against the rules, is generally frowned upon in honourable combat. Everyone should be free to power up their frameshift and get the hell out of dodge if the need be. There's no rule that says you have to fight to the death every time someone wants a go at you.

Ok we're 100% on same page then. Maybe we need another term rather than consentual or nonconsentual pvp.

Rephrase then - as long as there is one or more viable means to escape with decent odds from a pvp engagement you did NOT return fire or start combat, open is just fine today with zero changes needed.

Playing open = accepting risk that you may be fire upon

Playing open = accepting it is your choice and requirement to arm, spec, and be able to survive enough hits until you can use one of the two legal, FD approved means to escape.

Not sure what acronym or 2 work label best captures the above. I believe I am a moderate - I'm fine with someone dying because they played open. I'm not fine if there is no viable option to run. But I am ok with punishing - even harshly if needed - those that engage in combat, but then be sore losers about it and escape all consequence of accepting combat by logging out or even high wake escaping.

Personally, while no one has talked about this, I would actually support new mechanic that makes high wake escape harder.

right now, it is so easy to high wake escape, I am not sure why some people focus on the logout method (pro or con), because frankly the success ratio of immediate submit to interdiction so you have immediate high wake jump capability --> boost --> high wake away = such high odds of escape as long as adequately shielded, that adding additional timer to high wake after firing weapons would prob be good idea

e.g. if you high wake immediately without firing weapons, then normal timer and high chance to escape

if you fired weapons, then add much longer timer to high wake because in that scenario, frankly you accepted combat by returning fire, and should take the consequence of losing gracefully.

 

[Agony_Aunt]

In order for this temporary ban on open play to happen, FD would need to
a) retract their prior statement that logging out via acceptable timed menu is no longer intended nor ok
b) remove the menu logout method or add a much longer timer to either exit or keep your ship avatar still in game for X minutes even after your local connection is severed

Only A is required. B could simply have a warning like "logging out during combat against another player will result in a timeout of (x) from Open." Where X is the calculated amount based on their history of combat logging.

you are advocating as a volunteer moderator an action to temporarily ban -some- players from open for doing exactly what FD says is ok (e.g. logging out in accepted menu manner)

No, i'm advocating it as a player. My moderator status here is irrelevant.