![[VR] Mad Mike](https://forums-cdn.zaonce.net/data/avatars/m/27/27910.jpg?1553527108){kind=avatar}
I have to admit i often felt like doing a bit of PvP / ganking when BNP or ukip supporters came door knocking............ which is the real world equivalent of PP i guess
Last edited:
PVP Combat Logging - Vindicator Jones Video
- Thread starter vindicator jones
- Start date
I have to admit i often felt like doing a bit of PvP / ganking when BNP or ukip supporters came door knocking............ which is the real world equivalent of PP i guess
An off the wall idea (probably I should make it a suggestion in that forum, but then no-one would see it 
).
One of the problems with combat logging is that it breaks the immersion. Leaving aside the cause of the combat log (some will be legit disconnects), one way to mitigate the impact is to make the way a disconnect is handled a bit more immersive.
At the moment disconnected players act like the they are characters in an LPMUD who turn into indestructible stone statues when they disconnect rather than log off. This is pretty obvious when the ship stops taking damage (I've watched enough twitch streams to see this even though I've never experienced it live). If instead their ghost-ship performed a simulated self-destruct while continuing to take damage from weapons until one or other of these processes resulted in an explosion, then it would be less jarring.
On the other side - if I lose connection in a hazardous situation (one which would normally require me to sit through a timer to log off) then when I reconnect it's probably not necessary to drop me back into exactly that situation. If I reappear in the same CZ instance that I just exploded in from the perspective of other players, it's going to be jarring. Dropping me into a normal space instance near that CZ (or RES, or beacon) requiring me to reenter SC and reexit to rejoin the instance I was in before isn't a major imposition if I genuinely had a transitory problem. If I'm doing it deliberately and repeatedly to avoid consequences, the hassle of having to do this might discourage me from doing it as often.
It's not a cure, but it is an attempt to make the in-game experience change from 'that ship isn't taking damage any more' to 'that ship unexpectedly exploded' which is slightly more plausible from an immersive point of view. Habitual loggers will still make themselves fairly obvious, but that's no difference from the status quo.
).One of the problems with combat logging is that it breaks the immersion. Leaving aside the cause of the combat log (some will be legit disconnects), one way to mitigate the impact is to make the way a disconnect is handled a bit more immersive.
At the moment disconnected players act like the they are characters in an LPMUD who turn into indestructible stone statues when they disconnect rather than log off. This is pretty obvious when the ship stops taking damage (I've watched enough twitch streams to see this even though I've never experienced it live). If instead their ghost-ship performed a simulated self-destruct while continuing to take damage from weapons until one or other of these processes resulted in an explosion, then it would be less jarring.
On the other side - if I lose connection in a hazardous situation (one which would normally require me to sit through a timer to log off) then when I reconnect it's probably not necessary to drop me back into exactly that situation. If I reappear in the same CZ instance that I just exploded in from the perspective of other players, it's going to be jarring. Dropping me into a normal space instance near that CZ (or RES, or beacon) requiring me to reenter SC and reexit to rejoin the instance I was in before isn't a major imposition if I genuinely had a transitory problem. If I'm doing it deliberately and repeatedly to avoid consequences, the hassle of having to do this might discourage me from doing it as often.
It's not a cure, but it is an attempt to make the in-game experience change from 'that ship isn't taking damage any more' to 'that ship unexpectedly exploded' which is slightly more plausible from an immersive point of view. Habitual loggers will still make themselves fairly obvious, but that's no difference from the status quo.
A very level headed and fair summary of the matter.
IMHO, if FD start addressing combat logging now, without address the "other issues" first, it will be counter productive.
Last edited:
Well, they are addressing weapons balance first as if engineers had nothing to do with it so perhaps counterproductive is just the way they roll these days.
Fiddling with the numbers for existing weapons is infinitely simpler than fixing the C&P and Logging issues, both of which may require their own dedicated patch and a sizable team to create and implement. They are not equivalent in scope or challenge. Not even remotely.
Indeed. This is true and yet it makes it all the more urgent. C&P has been an issue for literally years, so there's no good excuse it's not being handled now or yesterday. Engineering effects and their strong effects on pvp have been known and talked about since they've come out and yet no talk on altering how they work.
I agree with you. These are both orders of magnitude more complicated than balance tweaks on weapons, but that only makes them all the more urgent. Unfortunately fd is doubling down on a mechanic that mostly causes divisiveness and burnout. It is a huge mistake.
Well, the day we don't have dedicated PvP layouts will be a better day for OPEN... They need to close the gap between fixed and gimbals IMHO to achieve that. I fear they are only making it bigger with the suuggested changes...
And as regards Engineers? As you suggest, it's just made it worse with individuals interested in mindless destruction now all them ore empowered to do so.
Question, can you believe in a game that's nign on two years old, that the depth of PvP it offers is basically interdicting random other players and shooting at them. Is it surprising we're in the pickle when:-
a) Most "victims" aren't interested at that time in a fight.
b) Most "victims" aren't in a PvP dedicated ship.
c) Some "victims" aren't "fully engineered".
Why is it after all this time we cannot yet undertake tasks/missions that, should we want it, will actually pit us against other CMDRs?
Last edited:
Great suggestions have been made over the years to provide the carrot as well as the stick. Personally I like attaching powerplay alliances to pvp encounters both natural and mission given (alongside real discouragement from taking on independent, clean pilots). The other thing that has occurred to me that I don't often hear mentioned is the warrant scanner. That thing should function (IMO) like a bounty hunters licence with availability of classes defining not how far the warrant can scan, but rather how widely it is allowed to search.
In other words, if you have good standing with the Empire, you can get a licence to hunt for them and anyone found in Empire space with a warrant against the Empire becomes fair game. Same with the other factions. An E grade would only allow you to seek in system bounties (within Empire, Fed and Aliance), while a D would allow a region of power (Aisling or Winters etc). A C grade could go power wide (full Empire space etc) and a B grade might allow you to hunt Empire bounties in Aliance and fed space. The A grade would require a clean rep across power controlled space and allow you to hunt anyone anywhere.
Licences can be revoked as your reputation changes.
The range at which you can scan should be tied to your scanner grade, not your warrant licence.
Scanner range should be able to be improved by having an active operator (your hired NPC) and their level of expertise as well as the grade of scanner itself.
This would also have an effect on the incoming scanner/Gimbal interaction.
In short, there is a lot that can be done to give the game a bit of functional role play and depth without breaking the bank. I do wish they would start veering in this direction with development.
Last edited:
Excellent video. I found myself agreeing with just about all of your points.
I am a PvE player. Just going to get that out of the way. I do play on Mobius most of the time. I am also a fuel rat, which means I have to venture into open every now and then. I will admit to having to combat log two times in this game. I didn't like having to do so, but I was in an adder and the other ship in both cases was an FDL. I know that this was not an attempt at pirating because I had no cargo racks at all. I was doing bounty hunting against npcs to so that I could buy a cobra mk III (a ship I still own). I was interdicted, and no communication was given, just weapon fire. I easily recognized that this other player wanted me dead just because, so I combat logged. I am not happy about it, but it was a necessary evil at the time.
I made a brief new player guide quite some time ago (it predates Horizons), and in there I did say that combat logging is a viable option for new players who run into a griefer/ganker/noob killer in open mode. I also provided methods that make running away much easier prior to mentioning combat logging. The only reason I combat logged at all because it was a last ditch option. A single insurance rebuy would have just about taken all of the cash I had at that time.
I can say that I have encountered a couple of genuine player pirates and did not combat log on them. The first time I was doing rare goods trading, and I was right next to the cluster of systems I had just bought from (the leesti/lave area). The pirate understood that I was not a profitable target with my 30 ish tons of cargo. The second time I was doing a rescue with the fuel rats and I was allowed to continue on my way. those are the only two exceptions to the general pattern that every player to interdict me has been looking to blow me up for no good reason. For the record, role-play, it being in the game, or anything involving the game's title are NOT good reasons. Psychopath players have resulted in 7 or 8 of my 12 insurance claims. As a result I play in Mobius. I wish I could play in open, but I don't feel like ever taking that risk. I like being able to run across other players, and with limits on group sizes, it isn't easy to come across other players that often. If it were safer to play in open, I would do so. But even though I now fly an FDL, it isn't engineered at all, and its set up to deal with NPCs. Any PvP FDL would eat me for breakfast.
I am a PvE player. Just going to get that out of the way. I do play on Mobius most of the time. I am also a fuel rat, which means I have to venture into open every now and then. I will admit to having to combat log two times in this game. I didn't like having to do so, but I was in an adder and the other ship in both cases was an FDL. I know that this was not an attempt at pirating because I had no cargo racks at all. I was doing bounty hunting against npcs to so that I could buy a cobra mk III (a ship I still own). I was interdicted, and no communication was given, just weapon fire. I easily recognized that this other player wanted me dead just because, so I combat logged. I am not happy about it, but it was a necessary evil at the time.
I made a brief new player guide quite some time ago (it predates Horizons), and in there I did say that combat logging is a viable option for new players who run into a griefer/ganker/noob killer in open mode. I also provided methods that make running away much easier prior to mentioning combat logging. The only reason I combat logged at all because it was a last ditch option. A single insurance rebuy would have just about taken all of the cash I had at that time.
I can say that I have encountered a couple of genuine player pirates and did not combat log on them. The first time I was doing rare goods trading, and I was right next to the cluster of systems I had just bought from (the leesti/lave area). The pirate understood that I was not a profitable target with my 30 ish tons of cargo. The second time I was doing a rescue with the fuel rats and I was allowed to continue on my way. those are the only two exceptions to the general pattern that every player to interdict me has been looking to blow me up for no good reason. For the record, role-play, it being in the game, or anything involving the game's title are NOT good reasons. Psychopath players have resulted in 7 or 8 of my 12 insurance claims. As a result I play in Mobius. I wish I could play in open, but I don't feel like ever taking that risk. I like being able to run across other players, and with limits on group sizes, it isn't easy to come across other players that often. If it were safer to play in open, I would do so. But even though I now fly an FDL, it isn't engineered at all, and its set up to deal with NPCs. Any PvP FDL would eat me for breakfast.
The flaw in your assumption is that surely frontier don't want conflict and that player engagement is accidental and not intended.
I understand the desire to assume only the good in people should rise to the top. I do. But this isn't that game. Frontier want conflict. They want some chaos. They don't really care if a commander is ganked by another. It just isn't really that important as a singular event.
The reason this stuff falls on mostly deaf ears, is because it assumes a misconception. "I can't believe this happens"; it does because frontier allows it to happen. You are simply assuming something that isn't really true.
I don't blame you, really. But frontier want strife and want people to grind and shoot and run and sometimes die. Anything more than that just eats too much of their time. The fact that the team is now spending far more time in open and are actively supporting changes designed to respond to PVP requests shows this isn't going away.
And please don't try to proselytise that conflict is automatically wrong and combat between commanders is not the intent of the developed surely. Because it is. It just is. I am sorry if that offends you. But this is what Frontier want. It is to be a game where combat is possible, at times encouraged and being shot at for no apparent reason is valid play. It may need more laws and rules to ensure a better universe.
But whilst commanders endlessly refuse to accept an aspect of the game exists, it can't be improved. Because frontier won't care and aren't listening. Please. I know you want to counter and say "but this.." or "surely that.." but I am trying to tell you that it's wasted effort.
You can agree to disagree. But people are still so locked in PVE vs PVP that they can't see the bigger picture as to how distructive that is in general. Sometimes you have to cut through the bullcrap to see the truth of things.
Frankly that mentality, of head in the sand is why CL'ing is rife. Because it's a refusal to accept the terms of the game. This impacts crime and punishment in a big way because right now stiffer penalties are unenforcable whilst CL is a valid escape.
Ironically nothing changes, because commanders refuse to accept the consequences of that change. CL has to die so law and order can exist. I really can't speak more plainly than that.
Last edited:
Well see, if that's the case - that FDEV really do not care about griefing in their game - that they do nothing about it by design - then the conclusion can only be that Open will be even more of a wasteland than it has already turned into.
No. One or two of the key FDEV senior honchos have said repeatedly in the past that they will do something about crime & punishment, and possibly even some sort of karma system. I'm still waiting on such action being taken.
But time is a-marchin' and this forum fight between the 'carebears' and the 'griefers' I've noticed is really starting to ramp up, and not in a good way. Reasonable posters are coming to the conclusions that VJ has outlined in his video. I can't believe FDEV haven't seen this fight between the two extremes has been hotting up as much as it has in the last few weeks, both here and on Reddit.
As stated earlier - if what you said isn't some form of bitter sarcasm, and FDEV really do intend to do nothing about crime & punishment - that they really are all watching the chaos and mayhem and are chuckling evilly in the background - then goodbye Open as the mainstream mode players go to when they play this game.
FDEV would in my opinion be very, very unwise to have this mindset you are claiming they have.
You may be waiting a very long time.
It is not cynicism, friend, it is the reality. CL remains, crime and punishment models are mentioned by frontier occasionally but the truth of the matter is that they just won't get traction on it. People still argue the speed limit. Killing cops.
Frontier knows the community well enough at this point to understand a C&P overhaul is all but impossible. I wish it was true that we'll see a strong karma system and people can seek to be infamous, as much as lawful-good. But this won't happen, for a very very long time, if ever.
That commanders refuse to believe combat is a part of the fabric of the game, specifically designed to be there by frontier, is exampled in the post above. Commanders are genuinely "stuck" demanding PVE or riot and frontier isn't going to budge here.
I'm not a cynic, friend. But a realist. I see things for what they are. And they are broken because commanders cannot escape the rut of their own making. So the same threads appear. The same slanging match.
CL is a symptom of a problem that Frontier should fix (C&P) but it's so big I am unconvinced they really can. There are so many aspects of the game still to build. Their time is not infinite so they do what they can.
Last edited:
My take on this discussion is that FDev doesn't appear to care about direct PvP. The game is based completely on Indirect PvP....also known as the movement of trophies between PvE adversaries. There are very few in game rewards for PVP (killing players CAN do some good in mission running...but numerically, you have to kill way more NPC's) and the newest additions to the game make PvP so lopsided that none but the most dedicated players are going to have the time to keep up with the arms race.
The insurance rates are at the level they are, to create a negative feedback loop AGAINST direct PvP. Basically, you want to be a PvP pro bro? You better get grinding for those credits to play the game you want to play!
Oh, you're a PvE player who doesn't care to PvP? Well either fly those small ships, and be completely out gunned, or fly those really big ships...and be completely outgunned!
Oh, you're a short time player....don't ever go into Open...you'll be grinding to replace that Cobra again and again!
I always hoped the PVP in this game was going to be better than it is...but, honestly, the devs only see the Indirect PvP as the way this game is going to be designed..and when they say PvP...keep that definition in mind.
Its an interesting point and you may be right. So are you suggesting David Braben was a liar and just desperately trying to get money for KSer by just saying what people at the time wanted to hear, or just that he has changed his mind about how the game should be and now wants gankers paradise?.
I choose to believe making the game as he wanted has just proven a little tougher than he naively advertised and is still a work in progress. I would say your view paints a bleak picture of the big cheese to be honest (bait and switch)
Last edited:
David is a dreamer and a salesman. He will tell you everything you want to hear. Nice guy, but he's not really building the game. His team is. David is signing off these changes. Can't really pleade the fifth here.
And his focus is on the vision. It's Sandro, Mike et-all who have to produce and create that vision. I don't think David is really involved in the day-to-day operational stuff. It's not so much lying, as simply communicating a vision; I don't believe the nuts and bolts of that are on his radar.
It's a popular myth that David is somehow divorced from all of this and will save commanders from all this. But it's just that, a myth. Sandro and Mike and co would not be doing what they do without direction or discussion. David isn't the innocent here. That myth needs to die so people can actually focus on the reality.
I half agree ...
I agree that all of the strategic progress on the map (Powerplay / BGS) and at CG's etc is based around indirect PvP.
But on the other hand FDev have put massive amounts of time into the nuts'n'bolts mechanics of direct PvP. Witness the complaints of many that the Devs do nothing nowadays except working on balancing direct PvP combat mechanics. Those complaints are a little overblown but as a PvP-er I must acknowledge that the Devs have given us a great deal of attention and I appreciate that.
What I think is needed to make the game whole is for FDev to fill in the other two blocks of the logic square.
At the moment we have:
Direct PvP: excellent mechanics, no strategic consequence.
Indirect PvP: sub-optimal mechanics, strategic consequence.
I think what direct PvP-ers would like is some consequence to our actions, and indirect PvP-ers would like, well ... better gameplay.
Last edited:
Are you being purposfully thick right now?
It's been called both an exploit and ''against the rules'' aka cheating.
https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showt...ging”-Update?p=1642728&viewfull=1#post1642728
https://www.reddit.com/r/EliteDange...m_anything_david_braben_obe_fdev_ceo/d96tzev/
