What made you reconsider? Cheesing long range smuggling until you had billions of cash?
How to stop Combat Logging and make the game more FUN for all in open play.
- Thread starter Adam Gorst
- Start date
What made you reconsider? Cheesing long range smuggling until you had billions of cash?
Not at all:
https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showt...-an-Analysis-on-Professions-and-Modes-of-Play
- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -
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.
I feel loved on this forum <3
Me too. I cant wait until this is finally put to rest.
That's a lot of coding required to get little more than "deal with it" levels.
Someone shot you? Deal with it.
Someone combat logged on you? Deal with it.
Open - Anything goes ...
I do see your point very clearly... This is exactly what happened to me and I am "hapily socializing in open mode, PvE prefering" person...
I got interdicted in my FDL on way from engineer base by another FDL.
I did not deploy weapons and typed in chat my usual thing: "Hello commander, how can I be of service?"
Absolutely no comms. Heat moded lasers, heat moded rockets, god knows what else moded weps started hitting me...
I boosted (grade 3 DD drives), but the oponent also had moded drives, so his speed was similar to mine...
FA-OFF turn to face him, boost towards him, very close pass.... BOOST BOOST BOOST in that direction (away from him), but he managed to turn and boost after me... I chatted "please dont TAB TAB TAB"
I was unable to boost out of range of his weps, temp 190, hull 10% when I high waked out.
I had the FDL fitted for PvE (Bi-Waves (enhanced mod), 5 HD boosters, KWS, HRP).
Anyone in unmodded ship would be dead in seconds.
Trader would be dead in miliseconds.
My heart was racing. But then I was thinking about this encounter and I just do not get it...
Why did he want to kill me?
What would he gain from killing me?
Why did he not communicate?
Why are people such A**hol*s ?
That's a lot of coding required to get little more than "deal with it" levels.
Someone shot you? Deal with it.
Someone combat logged on you? Deal with it.
Open - Anything goes ...
Except that "someone shot you" has a counter play.
"Someone logs on you" does not have one.
That's the problem with that.
- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -
Happens to me often.
I get interdicted, I type a greeting in chat, nothing in response, and I get shot at and have to wake because they are often in numbers. If it's people I know, it's whatever, just friends messing around, but strangers doing it just makes me sigh every time.
It's allowed, yes, albeit not checked by crime and punishment, but some courtesy could have been there for something outside of a random shooting and friendship could have formed if the interaction had the slightest context.
This is open world open PvP, not chess. Having counter plays or not is irrelevant.
Someone logs on you, you won. Yay. (I do consider "the most respected PvP player of ED" telling me to go kill myself a victory .. he knowest that he "hast not half the power to harm me, as I have to be hurt" ;P )
You think this makes piracy hard? Well ... hmm .. I was flying around with a dozen Articulation Motors, half a dozen Painite and an assortment of other Engineer related rubbish for the last weeks. After I got my own engineer unlocks and upgrades.
All that "hard to get stuff" that you need to "grind" .. blabla .. I had it aplenty and would have gladly "shared" with any 'honest' pirate (who doesn't like PvE and what he percieves as "grind" all that much *) ).
Carry it around in Open for some lulzbunny to come along and shoot my must-have-cargospace ships in the Station entrance? Not so much.
Yea, onlinegames. Impossible to play. - well, cargo disappear bug makes sharing hard at the moment I guess -
*) and that's one of those "attitude" things I don't get. As PvE player, you are literally swamped with credits and "rare" stuffs.
At one point they just weigh you down and you throw them away or sell them to a commodity market for a lump sum, so the notion to log when asked for cargo (at gunpoint or whatever) is endgame silly. Even ABA trading or CG hauling - there's pretty much no scarcety and the time investment to recover any cargo loss is trivial.
Last edited:
I still haven't seen anyone seriously address the OP's original claim that lowering rebuy would reduce the number of combat logs. A few people have simply responded that they don't think it would -- usually followed by saying that some people would log anyway. True. Even if there were no rebuy, people would still log, but it seems to me hard to deny that it would seriously reduce it. Frankly, we have no real way of knowing. We have no real idea of how frequently combat logging occurs and no insight into why they did it. But it is reasonable to speculate that rebuy costs have something to do with it. I'm not sure the people who are against reduced rebuy completely understand how that particular death mechanic pervasively affects almost every aspect of this game. Now it was a gameplay decision decided on by FD, so we'll probably have to live with it good or ill, but here are some of my opinions on how it affects the game.
1. Increases combat logging -- exactly the original point of this thread and I agree
2. Decreases the number of players in Open -- I believe that many more would play in open if the monetary penalty of death were reduced
3. Contrary to what you might think, it makes Elite easier.
What? How can this be? Surely a severe penalty for failure means the game is harder and more "hardcore". Actually, in my opinion it does just the opposite. This streak of "realism" makes Elite more like real life. In real life the death penalty is ... well ... death. But in real life it is extremely easy to avoid dying. I do it every day. I also avoid dying in Elite every day (I play in solo and Mobius). Elite is actually quite easy (at least at my combat level) -- interdicted by an NPC that I am not 100% certain I can beat. I simply run away. I don't even bother to high wake. Low waking away from multiple interdictions is simply faster and more efficient than high waking unless the station is very close or I've made no progress towards it before I am interdicted.
When FD attempts to add some challenge to the game via something like tough NPCs, it is immediately reverted. Why? Because the game will not last if the player is constantly losing progress. So we have a high rebuy plus "safe" gameplay instead of challenging gameplay with reduced penalties for failure. Part of this is, of course, the imbalance of risk vs. reward. If my rebuy is 6 million and this mission pays 600k but I have a 10% chance of losing my ship, this is not a reasonable mission to undertake. Do the math. If you exclusively played missions with those risk/reward figures you'd soon be broke. So we get no challenging missions, just safe ones because with the current risk vs. reward no one would have any incentive to play them (other than the filthy rich with nothing better to do).
Don't get me wrong. I love Elite. I play it every day. I've bought hundreds of dollars worth of peripherals. I plan to play for years to come. But don't fool yourself into thinking that a high rebuy somehow makes the game special. I believe it actually limits the game's potential in a lot of ways.
1. Increases combat logging -- exactly the original point of this thread and I agree
2. Decreases the number of players in Open -- I believe that many more would play in open if the monetary penalty of death were reduced
3. Contrary to what you might think, it makes Elite easier.
What? How can this be? Surely a severe penalty for failure means the game is harder and more "hardcore". Actually, in my opinion it does just the opposite. This streak of "realism" makes Elite more like real life. In real life the death penalty is ... well ... death. But in real life it is extremely easy to avoid dying. I do it every day. I also avoid dying in Elite every day (I play in solo and Mobius). Elite is actually quite easy (at least at my combat level) -- interdicted by an NPC that I am not 100% certain I can beat. I simply run away. I don't even bother to high wake. Low waking away from multiple interdictions is simply faster and more efficient than high waking unless the station is very close or I've made no progress towards it before I am interdicted.
When FD attempts to add some challenge to the game via something like tough NPCs, it is immediately reverted. Why? Because the game will not last if the player is constantly losing progress. So we have a high rebuy plus "safe" gameplay instead of challenging gameplay with reduced penalties for failure. Part of this is, of course, the imbalance of risk vs. reward. If my rebuy is 6 million and this mission pays 600k but I have a 10% chance of losing my ship, this is not a reasonable mission to undertake. Do the math. If you exclusively played missions with those risk/reward figures you'd soon be broke. So we get no challenging missions, just safe ones because with the current risk vs. reward no one would have any incentive to play them (other than the filthy rich with nothing better to do).
Don't get me wrong. I love Elite. I play it every day. I've bought hundreds of dollars worth of peripherals. I plan to play for years to come. But don't fool yourself into thinking that a high rebuy somehow makes the game special. I believe it actually limits the game's potential in a lot of ways.
Last edited:
Can someone check my logic regarding this notion of 'consensual' PvP?
In Open, there is a chance of encountering other players. This is by dev intent.
In Open, other players can attack you. This is by dev intent.
Therefore, choosing to be in Open *means* accepting the possibility that other players might attack you.
Yes? No?
In Open, there is a chance of encountering other players. This is by dev intent.
In Open, other players can attack you. This is by dev intent.
Therefore, choosing to be in Open *means* accepting the possibility that other players might attack you.
Yes? No?
There's at least two kinds:
1) Doesn't want to lose too much progress and doesn't want to pay upkeep (time) to play the game.
2) Doesn't want to be bothered with another person's brilliant idea of emergent gameplay at the moment.
I could subsume both under "doesn't want to waste time", but the first is likely driven by the pixel credits and maybe rebuy while the first is more driven by just time and not really rebuy cost.
- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -
No. Dev intent is wrong from the get go.
I agree with you. I'm guessing the OP agrees with you. After all he's suggesting a change intended to decrease combat logging thereby increasing incidental (I won't call it non-consensual) PvP. So, obviously, he's someone who plays PvP in Open -- otherwise why would you care about combat loggers.
- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -
Ok. Fair enough. What's your estimation of the relative percent of each kind? Even if it is 50-50, that would mean lowered rebuy would reduce combat logging by 50%. I tend to think that a lot of folk -- even if they are in camp (2), would at least sometimes say "what the hay ... let's give it a try" and try to fight it out instead of logging. Maybe they'd notice they were having a good time especially if their cost for losing was modest.
- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -
Ok. Fair enough. What's your estimation of the relative percent of each kind? Even if it is 50-50, that would mean lowered rebuy would reduce combat logging by 50%. I tend to think that a lot of folk -- even if they are in camp (2), would at least sometimes say "what the hay ... let's give it a try" and try to fight it out instead of logging. Maybe they'd notice they were having a good time especially if their cost for losing was modest.
I play PvE in Open. I care about combat loggers because I care about my game universe, and a game universe where player piracy is a dead career is lessened by that. I care about combat loggers because I may try PvP at some point in the future. I care about combat loggers, in a large part, because I can't abide things that I don't understand, and I don't understand choosing Open but thinking that you have a right not to be attacked by a player.
...what? Do you mean my interpretation of it or do you literally mean that you disagree with their fundamental design choices and want them changed?
Because that's kind of not up to you.
Less insurance.
Better server perfomance.
A shadow ban for griefers.
Balance.
Playing 1.6...why should i risk my ship/cargo against an overengineered/cheating NPC/Player with 400cr bounty on his head, hmm?
Git gud?
Buy Horizons, it's cheap?
Yeah, i thought so...kthxbye.
Better server perfomance.
A shadow ban for griefers.
Balance.
Playing 1.6...why should i risk my ship/cargo against an overengineered/cheating NPC/Player with 400cr bounty on his head, hmm?
Git gud?
Buy Horizons, it's cheap?
Yeah, i thought so...kthxbye.
no actually it isnt .... you are wrong sir, they are not making your game!! they are making their game and allowing us to play it
That is an asinine argument, PvP is a competitive subject and using something having no counters to and is being labeled as illegitimate by the hosting party of the competition is ridiculous.
I won what?
Cargo? Nope.
Destruction of the ship? Never wanted that in the first place.
You do know that as a partially PvP focused player myself that I need to keep up with Engineers right? I've done that already, probably more than most people on this forum considering how much I modded my ships.
Shooting you at station entrance doesn't sound like something a pirate does, not to mention Sandro explicitly stated that they are improving station security (shoot down missiles, OP lasers)
- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -
I don't think you are on the development team nor speak for the devs .-.
Last edited:
Well most of the frustration at combat loggers is expressed by folks on the receiving end of a combat log. As you state, you can be concerned about it in an abstract sort of way even when it doesn't affect you personally, but frankly it has nothing to do with Piracy (with a capital "P"). Realistically, what percentage of players are interdicted by people RP'ing piracy? Word is that Piracy is currently not viable independently of how many people combat log.
Hehe, If I was trying to be funny and accurate at the same time I'd say welcome to the internet.
Yeah, there's a balance issue with trade ships, I strongly believe anything with a T at the front of it (6/7/9) should be re-labelled flying coffin 6/7/9.
Also as seen by 2.2 beta there's the issue with heat being OP. That player will have to spend ages re-modding his/her weapons after 2.2 and that I find hilarious personally
As for the last bit there's any number of things that are possible but to be honest probably just for the laugh, it's the internet and people enjoy "male chicken" waving contests, what also needs a pass is crime and punishment (supposedly re-balance for 2.2 or 2.3 on the way). Make it so that the bounties and police response to players killing people is high and that they actually get hunted. Allow police into anarchy systems if the bounty is high enough, make the police ships scale to the crime etc etc.
I sincerely hope at some point if you go on a killing spree of say 10 players with harmless/mostly harmless ranking or so then you'll get interdicted by capital ships, that'd be awesome for all involved
Just gotta make sure it's balanced for the legit pirates too... *Chuckles*
Chuckles is everywhere, chuckles is love chuckles is life!
I've started a Poll on this if anybody is interested.
https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php/293710-Combat-Logging-Rebuy-Cost-Poll
Thanks,
Adam
https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php/293710-Combat-Logging-Rebuy-Cost-Poll
Thanks,
Adam
Sure, it's not my choice to design the game, but why would I not point out an underlying fundamental problem with the open sandbox?
Allowing to play the game? Well, if I remember correctly there's some kind of transaction before people are "allowed" to play, no?
Wasn't it you who posted a link to your own suggestions for changes just a few posts before? I didn't know you were on the dev team.
---
Nature has it that you can't pick your customers for your product. We're not streamlined in what we want in our games. We're not uniform in how we expect multiplayer to turn out. I disagree with the fundamental design of throwing all players who'd like to see player interaction in one way or another into one simple bucket hoping it'll turn out well somehow.