Open letter to Frontier

[[VR] Mad Mike]

I was responding to your assertion that software vendors can arbitrarily change the conditions under which software is licensed. They can't. Contract law applies to software in the same manner as any other goods or services, and one party to a contract does not have any legal right to arbitrarily amend it without the agreement of the other.

is that true? because steam have changed their T&C's multiple times and as i understanding it there is naff all i can do unless i want to surrender 80% of my pc games collection.

also, pinball FX had its T&Cs updated, my mate disagrees with ZEN Studios so much he didnt accept them, and now he can not install it despite owning every table on the game. he was refused a refund... so he bought pinball arcade instead.... but still, money wasted.

 

[Jockey79]

@jockey, games are designed to invoke or play on the feelings of a player. This design isn't a mistake. Players might miss or dislike the reaction, and that's the subjective part.

And again, the rules as you defined them are the rules programmed into the game. Combat logging is programmed in, but it's wrong for some reason apparently. This is logically inconsistent with how griefing is handled.

I don't really need to address anything else you said, since you either wholly missed the point or put out your bad kid "people just want an easy game" rhetoric.

For a start, combat logging is not "programmed" in to the game.
Combat logging has nothing to do with the games programming at all, it is a person externally avoiding the in game exit command by cutting their connection.

Secondly, YOU'RE the one who made the statement I don't know what fun is... as it is a subjective term, I may not know what you class as fun.... but FD made it quite clear they find random attacks to be fun.

Thirdly, the point missed was by you as you wanted to be insulting about my sense of fun;

YOU made the claim that NPCs do not attack for no reason..... when in fact, 2 of us have pointed out you are wrong and they do - care to address the point you sidestepped ?

I actually quoted the rule laid out.

I take issue with the motivation. I do not agree with the motivation logically. Because logically it would follow that Combat Logging is not against the rules.

Combat Logging is using an external method to exit the game, bypassing part of the game (the exit timer) - joining any group for the sole purpose to randomly attack attack people, does not bypass any game mechanic or rules

Griefing and combat logging are 2 different things.

 

[Faded Glory]

[snip]
Also, making NPCs "less insane" shows they do want them to be random nutters... as they could stop them outright but choose not to stop them.
In fact SJA made them harder a few months back and has said time and time again, she can make the NPCs as hard / nuts as she likes... all we have to do is ask.

And if you think the Mobius invasion was bad, just wait until Code / Goon (whatever they call themselves here) / SDC and the likes all start asking for mental hard NPCs to be added.
Because then they don't even have to put the effort in to ruin your day, they'll get FD to do it for them by over tweaking the NPCs.

So, sorry pal - but NPCs do attack randomly and FD could have stopped that at any point - but they just keep tweaking how often it happens and how hard the NPCs are.
Your definition of "fun" or mine has nothing to do with it - the Devs enjoy random attacks so we all have to suffer them.

I personally think they will always keep (most) of the NPCs manageable for the majority of players. I've said before on other threads, it's not in their interest to drive their players from the game by killing them every time they fly. Of course they could make pretty much all the NPCs invincible if they wanted to, but if they do over tweak them, then they will do a balancing pass, at least I imagine they would.

The random attacks are indeed a part of the game, although I did see a post some time ago from Michael Brookes stating that he is aware that some players are frustrated with the constant interdictions triggered by some missions and PP, so I guess they are 'monitoring' such things. It's never really been a bother for me, the biggest 'bother' is that I might have to fly to a station in the system to collect the bounty rather than just carry on jumping to wherever it is I'm going, but yes, like you I have been jumped in my sidewinder taxi on the way to Founders World to buy a ship, but I had no problem jumping out.

For what it's worth, I killed Braben last night, but he was wanted, and he was an NPC, so I reckon that was alright...

 

[Bomba Luigi]

Maybe they should keep this in mind when they design game mechanics, instead of saying "better not do that or else!" That'd be like if the back of the station wasn't rendered and crashed your game, and they said "don't go back there!"

?

you want gamedevolpers to create a game that cannot be ended, that prevents your computer from be turned off and stops you from cutting internet connection? How should that be possible, and more importantly is it even legal?
Really no choice other then punish a player for combat logging after he has done it, its either that or make it legal and okay. And making it okay in a game that, as it looks now, is all about PvP would be a bad Idea.

 

[Bran Tse Mallory]

I was responding to your assertion that software vendors can arbitrarily change the conditions under which software is licensed. They can't. Contract law applies to software in the same manner as any other goods or services, and one party to a contract does not have any legal right to arbitrarily amend it without the agreement of the other.

When you accept the EULA you accept the terms. You have in effect agreed to the term which allows the change. You do of course have the right not to sign/agree to the contract but then you don't have the right to use the software. I understand what you are saying as it is a known grey area that several companies try to get around by making it almost impossible to do anything about. Bear in mind these things are written by teams of lawyers with vast knowledge of handwavium terms

Anyways, enough of this, back to the OT!

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Combat Logging is using an external method to exit the game, bypassing part of the game (the exit timer) - joining any group for the sole purpose to randomly attack attack people, does not bypass any game mechanic or rules

Griefing and combat logging are 2 different things.

By golly man, did you read Zac's quote? Please do.

I am well aware what the differences are between Combat Logging and Group Infiltration and that they're not the same thing. Please don't act as if you have to explain this to me.

 

[KaizoMK]

?

you want gamedevolpers to create a game that cannot be ended, that prevents your computer from be turned off and stops you from cutting internet connection? How should that be possible, and more importantly is it even legal?
Really no choice other then punish a player for combat logging after he has done it, its either that or make it legal and okay. And making it okay in a game that, as it looks now, is all about PvP would be a bad Idea.

You need to think outside the box. If you can't stop players from combat logging, then add in game consequences for combat logging that are reasonable, or find a way to preserve data while offline, or change pvp so that combat logging simply isn't relevant.

When griefers rammed players at stations, they changed the game to make it harder to do that. FD is smart, I'm sure they can do a better job of dealing with combat logging. If they want to label it as an exploit, it's on them to fix the exploit, not on us not to exploit it.

 

[Spinell]

A couple of things were apparent from the youtube video, the most glaringly obvious was how people with such expensive and end game ships have little or no idea about self preservation tactics. I get that entering a group that is PvE is lame, not against ED rules but lame but the video brings to the surface the massive disparity and imbalance between what people in open and group need to spend on their ships to survive.

You going to a nudist beach and pointing out that swimwear costs so much.
Join the nudists and you won't have to pay for swimwear.

 

[Jockey79]

By golly man, did you read Zac's quote? Please do.

I am well aware what the differences are between Combat Logging and Group Infiltration and that they're not the same thing. Please don't act as if you have to explain this to me.

I've read your highlighted bit over and over.....

You're the one treating people playing by the rules (despite it being morally discussing) the same as bypassing a game mechanic externally to gain an unfair advantage and exit the game faster.
They are not the same thing and FD do not treat them the same. They treat in accordance with what ever "rules" / "standards" they wish under the terms with which we licence the game from them.

As much as you want to lump them both in the same boat, you cannot do that when only 1 is breaking the rules and is an offence under FDs rules and the other is just being a within FD rules.

If you join Mobius and go on a killing spree, you've done nothing wrong
If you pull your internet connection to bypass the exit timer in combat - then you have cheated and FD can and do take action over it.
(Though a shadow ban is hardly a punishment imo)

 

[EddyRockSteady]

If they want to label it as an exploit, it's on them to fix the exploit, not on us not to exploit it.

They cannot fix it: It is incapable of being fixed. It's the perfect tool, completely foolproof. It's a consequence of FD's own engine design.

I'd love to know why they did not foresee this very consequence the moment they decided to renege on the SP version of the game in favour of the online-only version. Then again, they must have foreseen it. Question is, why continue, knowing?

 

[Jex =TE=]

how can you come to a conclusion when you have no idea how much traders lose.

I do!, and it is potentially more than an hrs play.
I make under 3000 profit per ton trading (2600 one way, 300 return leg) which works out around 1.3 million per run in my T9.

the rebuy cost on my T9 AND on a full load of imperial slaves is in the region of 8.5 million (ship) and around 6.1 million for my load.

that is almost a 15 million loss.

So i need to do 12 runs to make back my loss, and hope to dodge the same weed again. given a T9 has a laden jump range of around 7LY choices for dodging these types in open are limited......... esp as they only need to "get" me once in 12 runs.

traders lose an inordinately huge amount compared to any other profession, and after the mental boosting of all illegal professions it is totally imbalanced.

That's why I said I don't trade and asked the question. So 12 jumps takes a week?

 

[Jockey79]

You need to think outside the box. If you can't stop players from combat logging, then add in game consequences for combat logging that are reasonable, or find a way to preserve data while offline, or change pvp so that combat logging simply isn't relevant.

When griefers rammed players at stations, they changed the game to make it harder to do that. FD is smart, I'm sure they can do a better job of dealing with combat logging. If they want to label it as an exploit, it's on them to fix the exploit, not on us not to exploit it.

Problem FD have had with dealing with this issue, is how to tell if someone is a combat logger, or if someone just has a crud PC / internet connection.
They really want to avoid false positives and end up punishing innocent people.

Without an actual client/ server model in place, the match maker cannot keep a ship online without the client pc being connected, so that plan is kaput before it starts.
As for changing PvP, all suggestions to change PvP are met with fierce opposition - someone did talk about an auto points system a while back to help detect serial CLs... wow that went down hill fast.
Wasn't a bad suggestion, but some folks really don't want anyone keeping track of their log in/out habits (wonder why? lol).

It is a complex problem with no real fix.
And asking people to be considerate and play nice, well..... that didn't turn out so well for folks in the Mobius Group recently did it.

 

[MVP_Bluntman]

Personally I feel the game just needs more alongside craft advancements, most of these craft that we have are aging craft, and we have very few new ones. We are seeing that happen with them going to add more hardpoints, and who knows maybe just HOPEFULLY we will get some sort of FSD upgrade, however I've been using the Corvette that everyone's been complaining about, and I stuck a 7A Fuel Scoop because I could care less about an SCB, because if i lose the ship in combat then oh well I have money to replace it. Personally the Corvette is great, do I feel that it needs an FSD buff? personally no, I can recover the fuel quickly and keep jumping in a matter of seconds.

Honestly I just want a nice Asp upgrade. Is that too much to ask for



The Problem with PVP is that there are too many variables, and the most important variable is pilot error.

IF people combat log, well they know the rules, adios.
If people kill other people via PVP on Mobius, then same deal, adios. The Point is its a group created for PVE, the #1 rule is dont engage in PVP

The game has optional PVP, why does it have to be built around PVP, why do the PVE crowd have to cater, instead they should just conform to adding more rewards to open play.

 

[KaizoMK]

Problem FD have had with dealing with this issue, is how to tell if someone is a combat logger, or if someone just has a crud PC / internet connection.
They really want to avoid false positives and end up punishing innocent people.

Without an actual client/ server model in place, the match maker cannot keep a ship online without the client pc being connected, so that plan is kaput before it starts.
As for changing PvP, all suggestions to change PvP are met with fierce opposition - someone did talk about an auto points system a while back to help detect serial CLs... wow that went down hill fast.
Wasn't a bad suggestion, but some folks really don't want anyone keeping track of their log in/out habits (wonder why? lol).

It is a complex problem with no real fix.
And asking people to be considerate and play nice, well..... that didn't turn out so well for folks in the Mobius Group recently did it.

If I lost some percentage of my cargo when I combat log, that'd be irritating but okay, and the lost cargo can be dropped right there in space.

For bounties......I'm not really sure about that one, how to give satisfaction or reward to the Hunter without breaking the game. But that's the goal.

Logging against a griefer? Lol, no punishment.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

I've read your highlighted bit over and over.....

You're the one treating people playing by the rules (despite it being morally discussing) the same as bypassing a game mechanic externally to gain an unfair advantage and exit the game faster.
They are not the same thing and FD do not treat them the same. They treat in accordance with what ever "rules" / "standards" they wish under the terms with which we licence the game from them.

And these rules are motivated by motivation. It is this motivation I am questioning.

FD can rule that you have to have your lights on while docking because bananas are good for you.

My complaint is that the motivation doesn't lead to the ruling. Your explanation is: you have to have the lights on while docking because that's the rule FD set.

As much as you want to lump them both in the same boat, you cannot do that when only 1 is breaking the rules and is an offence under FDs rules and the other is just being a within FD rules.

I will lump the motivation in the same boat, since I feel there should be consistency in motivation.

Now, if you're going to explain to me that Combat Logging is against the rules, don't expect a reply.

 

[Sapient6]

They cannot fix it: It is incapable of being fixed. It's the perfect tool, completely foolproof. It's a consequence of FD's own engine design.

I'd love to know why they did not foresee this very consequence the moment they decided to renege on the SP version of the game in favour of the online-only version. Then again, they must have foreseen it. Question is, why continue, knowing?

My guess: they barely even care, and only pay lip service to caring in order to calm the raging nerve endings of the minority portion of the player base that cares.

 

[Jex =TE=]

Losing a full trade ship takes 2-3 hours of GRINDING to replace, to satisfy about 2 minutes of attacker jollies.

Depending on what's in your cargo hold, what missions and exploration data you have, and how often you get to play you could easilly lose a week's progress to a random seal clubber, yeah.

OK but if you're trading that's all you ever do. If the GRINDING is so bad, why are you even bothering to play the game that's so boring to you, the thought of spending another 2-3 hours is horrific? Surely 2-3 hours when you've done the same thing for hundreds of hours is nothing. I mean, you are playing the game to enjoy it aren't you or what's the point?

 

[Scoopy Doopy]

how can you come to a conclusion when you have no idea how much traders lose.

I do!, and it is potentially more than an hrs play.
I make under 3000 profit per ton trading (2600 one way, 300 return leg) which works out around 1.3 million per run in my T9.

the rebuy cost on my T9 AND on a full load of imperial slaves is in the region of 8.5 million (ship) and around 6.1 million for my load.

that is almost a 15 million loss.

So i need to do 12 runs to make back my loss, and hope to dodge the same weed again. given a T9 has a laden jump range of around 7LY choices for dodging these types in open are limited......... esp as they only need to "get" me once in 12 runs.

traders lose an inordinately huge amount compared to any other profession, and after the mental boosting of all illegal professions it is totally imbalanced.

Actually, I think explorers potentially lose more, though they are not vulnerable for that long. My last trip, I was carrying 46M in data and three weeks worth of time when I jumped back into the bubble. Plus I had no weapons, weak shields and crappy thrusters. I got interdicted within two seconds of arriving though escaped with just a couple of shield rings missing. However, on balance, given its a constant threat for traders, maybe they do have it worse.

 

[Jex =TE=]

It is, but FD make the NPCs and FD want random nut jobs who attack for no reason.
They'd rather it be the players, but they do have NPCs that do it was well.

Which shows his argument as wrong. The AI do attack you but for some reason, having a player do it somehow hurts more.

 

[Pendra]

While I'm with you in spirit, there's no way any programmer can stop or filter abject stupidity. If people want to disrupt a certain aspect of the game for lulz, there is no way to stop that except banning all the people from PvE.

I'm a proud Mobius member, but I don't play in that group unless I have my rebuy covered. Playing in PvE is no guarantee of safety in a game with "Dangerous" in the title.

Programmers can't stop stupidity, but can add a small little thing called: FRIENDLY FIRE OFF.
Not rocket science or cutting edge tech.