Nonsense, the developers have already said logging off in combat during open play is considered an exploit and is not intended game play. Yet players still imagine they are playing something else entirely despite being catered for with private groups; there is only one side of this argument burying their heads in the sand
Peops who log off during a dual!!
- Thread starter bassist9
- Start date
Nonsense, the developers have already said logging off in combat during open play is considered an exploit and is not intended game play. Yet players still imagine they are playing something else entirely despite being catered for with private groups; there is only one side of this argument burying their heads in the sand
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
I was not commenting on the combat logging - that is an abuse of the game and will probably be discouraged in some way (that no-one will be completely happy with).
You maybe missed that I was referring to the portion of the quote that I bolded, i.e. "should not have joined in open mode, doing so gives consent for open pvp".
here! here!
I just wish people who did this sort of thing wouldn't play in Open. Its not that i care since i'm 100% PvE.... i just get tired of seeing these threads.
I'm guessing your post is a joke. However it illustrates nicely why this exploit may not be stopped. The Open game mechanic does not promote non-consensual PvP (even if the non-consensual bit comes in at the end of the fight). Yes, pirating is allowed but FD always said it would not be easy (or fair?).
Mechanic may not change as Private Group is the place for real PvP with rules for battle arenas, rematch, leaderboards etc, all decided, run and enforced by the particular group. (see the groups forum for more info)
Comments that Open is for PvP only, or implies consensual PvP, are plainly wrong (along the lines of:"You've submitted to my interdiction so now you've agreed to fight me to the death").
There will certainly be some (increasingly rare) opportunity for random PvP in Open, but players (both attacker and defender) may 'cheat' so there are risks to our gameplay satisfaction if we look for PvP fair play in Open.
Calls for Open to be a default PvP group mode do not take into account the size, no rules, sandbox design of Open. It is a very unsatisfactory arena for PvP (except for scripted events such as combat zones and capital ships) and unlikely to provide good PvP gameplay. In any case Private Groups provide the rules based PvP option so no need for Open to duplicate that.
'cheating' is, of course in the eye of the beholder. FD have stated categorically they will deal with cheats, so report any behaviour you feel is cheating (or even unfair) and if FD agrees with you it will be dealt with.
Last edited:
Surely you can do the same thing by charging up your FSD, which takes 15 seconds if not inhibited by mass? In that sense 15 seconds is about right.
now this seems like a great idea, we could all have a witch hunt and all go hunt down CMDR joe bloggs when ever we see him cause he was reported by another CMDR for combat logging, wait their I will go grab my pitch fork.
Because with the P2P architecture, genuine (i.e. unintended) player<->player disconnections are probably more common than player<->server disconnects. With a player<->player disconnect you have no option but to cleanly separate the players back into separate instances without penalizing either player. So even if you penalize players for a player<->server disconnect, a motivated player can still cheat without detection by fire walling a peer players IP in order to force an instance seperation.
I did not miss anything at all, the fact remains that players who do not want open pvp are catered for with private groups or solo mode. Open play means just that, open to any and all interactions with other players, including open pvp; there is no counter argument here, only fruitless and pointless whining from those who cannot accept the rules of the game.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Indeed - however, please do not presume consent as it has not (necessarily) been given.
Exactly. A lot people here dont seem to grasp the reason for the no name and shame policy. How do we know people are being honest and the other person may not visit the forums in order to be able to give their side of the story.
Consent was given the instant they clicked open. The rules of the game are clear, players entering into the game are bound to obey those rules, there is no obfuscation, no playing with semantics. Open; unblocked, exposed, not protected, unbarred, even the name of the mode makes it clear what to expect
Last edited:
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
That is your opinion based on an assumption. Not everyone is playing the game for PvP.
I think what he is trying to say is, IF you are playing in open mode then you are actively giving CONSENT to all game mechanics that that entails with one of them being open PVP
- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -
Not everyone is playing for PVP you are correct but if you are in open mode you still need to be aware of the risks of getting shot at by another player, this is part of the game and you can't just QQ cause you got shot in open mode and say I am only playing PVE.
See that's the point though, people who do want PVP are also catered for by groups, the problem is there seems to be little desire to create a PVP group, I kind of get that pirates will go for weaker prey, (haulers/traders), kind of goes with the territory. But this is not a massive issue, a little frustrating at the tme? - yes, but none more so than an empty USS or interdiction. And please, enough with the 'whining' memes, it seems the only ones doing this in this thread are the pro pvp crowd. It amazes me how some of you guys can state 'the devs said this or that about combat logging' while at the same time ignoring what the devs have said about pvp being 'rare and meaningful'and the majority of interactions being with NPC's.
Bottom line - a bit lame on the combat loggers part, yes, a big deal, not at all.
Rafe Zetter
Banned
I remember a time when disco meant something else, it was hip and cool and the funkiest of pilots did it all the time
*now I have a mental image of a commander in a Spandex (lycra) sparkly silver flightsuit, massive wingtip shirt, open to the navel, oversized gold Elite medallion and sideburns with obligatory sock down the front; funkin' along to Bee Gee's "Staying Alive"... lawl*
Oh man I'd pay to have my pilot look like than when we can walk around.... hahahaha
I'm not going to play solo mode to avoid upsetting thieves and vandals. I don't buy the 'consent' argument either.
Bottom line is that nobody is obliged to cooperate with pirates. The situation is made worse by the fact that vandals outnumber genuine pirates by a considerable margin and there is no way to tell the difference.
Labelling someone a 'griefer' because they logged to avoid a griefer or antisocial personality doesn't hold any water. I haven't seen any "rules" about logging off either. The developers have implemented a time delay (15 seconds?) and people are entitled to use it. Logging off is a legitimate game mechanic.
Now how about you get an honest job?
I assume nothing, nor is it opinion, open mode caters to open pvp, it does not require additional consent, there are no voluntary pvp flags, entering open play you are agreeing to abide by the rules of the game mode. So I return to an earlier comment you saw fit to comment on, they should not have entered open mode if they do not consent to open pvp, alternatives are provided; there are no if's and's or but's, however, it would seem it needs repeating to some folks until it starts to sink in.