If Combat Logging is a bad thing. Then why is it okay to attack a player faction without being seen?

[WorldsGreatestForumDad]

Obviously some of the engagements in Elite are meant for fights over territory. However the attacker can simply opt out of being attacked back or defended against. With no need to combat log at all.

Why is combat logging such a big deal, when people have the option to remove themselves from the people they are attacking to begin with?

Which one is the bigger problem here?

 

[Brrokk]

I think both of those issues are being discussed in other copies of this thread.

 

[GreyAreaUK]

Still banging on that tired old drum, eh?

 

[WorldsGreatestForumDad]

They are separately yes.

This is a different topic.

Why is one acceptable, and the other is not.

When they both accomplish the same end goal. Being able to turn in missions, data, influence in exactly the same way removing yourself from the defenders.

Im asking, why is one accepted. But the other is not?

 

[Vandaahl]

Why is combat logging such a big deal

It isn't. Blaze your own trail.

 

[Brrokk]

They are separately yes.

This is a different topic.

Why is one acceptable, and the other is not.

When they both accomplish the same end goal. Being able to turn in missions, data, influence in exactly the same way.

Im asking, why is one accepted. But the other is not?

Which one do you think is accepted? I haven't seen that.

 

[GreyAreaUK]

Why is one acceptable, and the other is not.

Well, let's see now. Combat Logging is either against the actual rules of the game or not (depending on method used), while playing the BGS in any mode is a feature of the game.

But you know this already.

 

[WhoCares]

What it comes down to is the simple fact that we actually don't have PvE - there would be no discussion if it was just PvE. What we have is PvEvP, with E being the BGS. The whole discussion boils down to a bypass to the BGS.
I also deem it funny that some people always insist on being able to defend themself in open. I wonder what will happen if they attack the system of a PvEvP PMF - shall those suddenly be forced into open combat as well, with their completely inadequate PvEvP ships - maybe they are part of the no-engineering club as well - tough luck, I guess...

Quoting myself, as it seems to fit here just as well...

 

[Tuub t Tute]

Because false equivalence is fun!

 

[Jmanis]

Because this:

[video=youtube;y5DGyG6Qwvk]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y5DGyG6Qwvk[/video]

 

[Robert Maynard]

Which one is the bigger problem here?

One has been declared as unacceptable by Frontier and the other has not.

Hence one is a problem and the other is "by design" (in a game where PvP is, as it always has been, remains entirely optional).

 

[WorldsGreatestForumDad]

One has been declared as unacceptable by Frontier and the other has not.

Hence one is a problem and the other is "by design" (in a game where PvP is, as it always has been, remains entirely optional).

Better move this thread so it doesnt gain traction huh maynard? Meanwhile Janes thread about the Modes and BGS has been up for over a week in DD.

You never cease to amaze me.

Double standards in and out of the game are pretty real around these forums. Is it not?

 

[GreyAreaUK]

Better move this thread so it doesnt gain traction huh maynard? Meanwhile Janes thread about the Modes and BGS has been up for over a week.

You never cease to amaze me.

If you start what are in essence duplicate threads then you get what you get.

 

[WorldsGreatestForumDad]

If you start what are in essence duplicate threads then you get what you get.

Its not a dup thread. This is a completely different topic all together.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Obviously some of the engagements in Elite are meant for fights over territory. However the attacker can simply opt out of being attacked back or defended against. With no need to combat log at all.

No one can opt out of being defended against - any attack can be defended against through the BGS.

 

[WorldsGreatestForumDad]

No one can opt out of being defended against - any attack can be defended against through the BGS.

Yep, absolutely not trying to control these conversations at all.

Amazing

 

[Robert Maynard]

Yep, absolutely not trying to control these conversations at all.

Amazing

Comparing playing the game in the manner designed and implemented by the Developer (and in accordance with current advertising) to a form of cheating is pretty poor form.

 

[WorldsGreatestForumDad]

Comparing playing the game in the manner designed and implemented by the Developer (and in accordance with current advertising) to a form of cheating is pretty poor form.

If the end result achieves the same accomplishment both ways. Its cheating.

And yes, We are still going to talk about how you show up to every one of these threads. BEcause you dont want to be defended against while attacking another player faction.

you try to control these conversations. Ive watched you do this for a very long time.

 

[Robert Maynard]

If the end result achieves the same accomplishment both ways. Its cheating.

Frontier don't seem to share that opinion.

And yes, We are still going to talk about how you show up to every one of these threads. BEcause you dont want to be defended against while attacking another player faction.

you try to control these conversations. Ive watched you do this for a very long time.

I show up because I am interested in the topic. I bought a game where PvP is optional and some players seek to remove that choice.

One individual cannot control a conversation - equally, no-one is excluded from that conversation.

 

[Ashnak]

Why is one acceptable, and the other is not.

Becuse one is according to the rules of the game, the other is not. Easy.

Better move this thread so it doesnt gain traction huh maynard? Meanwhile Janes thread about the Modes and BGS has been up for over a week in DD.

You never cease to amaze me.

Double standards in and out of the game are pretty real around these forums. Is it not?

https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showt...23-May-2016)?p=3895631&viewfull=1#post3895631

Just sayin'. Methinks you're treading on very thin ice here, kiddo.