I beg to differ. There was no "if" statement either implicit or explicit. For example, they did not say "menu log is legitimate only if such and such" or "menu log is legitimate unless such and such". They basically said "its currently legit, but that is unfortunate since we did not *intend* for it to be used to avoid piracy. Make a suggestion in the forums and maybe it will get worked on"
Recent discussions of CG, Combat logging, "Griefers", etc, PLEASE explain...
- Thread starter FurtivePygmy
- Start date
- Status
I beg to differ. There was no "if" statement either implicit or explicit. For example, they did not say "menu log is legitimate only if such and such" or "menu log is legitimate unless such and such". They basically said "its currently legit, but that is unfortunate since we did not *intend* for it to be used to avoid piracy. Make a suggestion in the forums and maybe it will get worked on"
I don't combat log (using limits outside the game). I have on occassion quit to menu because that is within the limits of the game.
The PvP that takes place is of two sorts, goal orientated with an upside that has implications within the game and those interactions that do not.
Some players play "The Joker" and just kill people, thats fine, it is infantile but it is part of the game.
What most people object to is the self-rightous rubbish that some of these particular players put forward on the forums or on youtube, "harvesting salt" or professing to highlight areas of the game that are lacking. In particular in relation to dealing with "pull the plug" combat logging. I saw a video the other day whereby a PvP'er well known for griefing got combat logged by a player after he demanded cargo. The PvP'er in question does not have cargo space, limpets or a limpet controller on his or his teams ships. The piracy mechanic needs work. But to set a pretense that they were being pirates by demanding cargo in that situation is ludicris.
The reasons that pull the plug combat logging has not been dealt with is that it is exceptionally difficult to justify how any mechanic would play out, be it post disconnect persistance of assets or a similar approach. Day-Z is a much sharper game, being that if you died you lost all your gear, than this and had problems with combat logging. Now, most hardcore PvP players who played Day-Z just got on with it, the rest of the game was good enough that you put up with it and you dealt with the combat logging as an unfortunate part of what ostensibly is a fairly exceptional game.
If these players dont like the game as it is now, then their constant whining about "how life isn't fair", then they can carry on or quit.
But the whining has to stop, they profess to be these hardcore killers and then moan on youtube or on the forums.
If you want to play the psycho, kill someone, do it again if you want, but do not be a momma's boy if it doesnt go your way.
The PvP that takes place is of two sorts, goal orientated with an upside that has implications within the game and those interactions that do not.
Some players play "The Joker" and just kill people, thats fine, it is infantile but it is part of the game.
What most people object to is the self-rightous rubbish that some of these particular players put forward on the forums or on youtube, "harvesting salt" or professing to highlight areas of the game that are lacking. In particular in relation to dealing with "pull the plug" combat logging. I saw a video the other day whereby a PvP'er well known for griefing got combat logged by a player after he demanded cargo. The PvP'er in question does not have cargo space, limpets or a limpet controller on his or his teams ships. The piracy mechanic needs work. But to set a pretense that they were being pirates by demanding cargo in that situation is ludicris.
The reasons that pull the plug combat logging has not been dealt with is that it is exceptionally difficult to justify how any mechanic would play out, be it post disconnect persistance of assets or a similar approach. Day-Z is a much sharper game, being that if you died you lost all your gear, than this and had problems with combat logging. Now, most hardcore PvP players who played Day-Z just got on with it, the rest of the game was good enough that you put up with it and you dealt with the combat logging as an unfortunate part of what ostensibly is a fairly exceptional game.
If these players dont like the game as it is now, then their constant whining about "how life isn't fair", then they can carry on or quit.
But the whining has to stop, they profess to be these hardcore killers and then moan on youtube or on the forums.
If you want to play the psycho, kill someone, do it again if you want, but do not be a momma's boy if it doesnt go your way.
Last edited:
I would disagree, there can be two statements made separately that are joined together to make sense.
Sandro once said that a Conda going after a Sidewinder isn't griefing and is legitimate.
But FD's definition of griefing happens to be a repetitive targeting of the same player.
So in conjunction, a Conda going after a Sidewinder isn't griefing, as long as the Conda isn't targeting the same Sidewinder over and over.
Last edited:
My dear Mr Fang...
Anaconda blowing up Sidewinder isn't griefing. Of course it's not. It might be scummy, but if it takes place in-game with no exploit it's not griefing. It's the same if the Sidey pilot logs out using the menu whilst evading or tanking 15 seconds of Anaconda fire - that's not griefing or exploiting. The Anaconda pilot may feel that the Sidey was acting scummy - but that's how it goes I suppose.
I would love to see FD's definition of griefing - source please!
Anaconda blowing up Sidewinder isn't griefing. Of course it's not. It might be scummy, but if it takes place in-game with no exploit it's not griefing. It's the same if the Sidey pilot logs out using the menu whilst evading or tanking 15 seconds of Anaconda fire - that's not griefing or exploiting. The Anaconda pilot may feel that the Sidey was acting scummy - but that's how it goes I suppose.
I would love to see FD's definition of griefing - source please!
I think this is because "griefing" is more subjective and has a lot to do with the intent of the player. This is likely covered by a vague or general statement in a code of conduct section of the EULA.
Source- https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showt...update-Reiteration-of-player-harassment-rules
Conda blowing up a Sidewinder is legitimate (as long as the Conda isn't repetitively attacking the same Sidewinder).
Sidewinder using menu log to evade the Conda (as long as the Conda is not engaging in bounty hunting or piracy) is legitimate.
The former's exclusion's reasoning is due to clearly evident harassment and detriment to one's game play.
The latter's exclusion's reasoning is due to the improbability of conducting piracy and bounty hunting.
- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -
See above.
Hey fang, you might want to re-read that. It says the opposite. It says "FD DO consider it to be LEGITIMATE". Avoiding the interactions isn't an intended consequence of it and they intend to look in to fixes, but logging out through the menu is not considered an exploit. (Oops, see that several other people pointed that out already.)
Last edited:
Please read the recent posts.
Unless of course, you believe that people aren't aware of bounty hunters while having a wanted status with a clean bounty hunting chasing said criminal down, or that a clear message has been sent to clarify one's intention of piracy before interdiction yet one is still oblivious to the intent of the pirate.
Last edited:
Yeah, I saw that after I posted and am forming a more thorough response now, though I'm not sure what you are getting at with the second part of this response. Could you clarify it for me. I'm genuinely not sure what you were trying to say.
It's meant to complement response I gave regarding how the instance of a feature used in an unintended manner to cause detriment to other legitimate players with no way of countering makes the use of said feature in that instance an exploit.
Which quite clearly and explicitly states that harassing individuals after repeated attempts to avoid / block communication will not be tolerated.
That disrupting livestreams or events and boasting about it all over the web isn't a nice thing to do.
That groups are managed by themselves. Running in Open and saying "L4M3R SUXX0RS ALL GONNA DI3" whilst streaming may very well end up with the aforementioned group stomping you into goo - and that is fair game.
Accounts that are purely set up for the sole purpose of harassment - easy to do and with Steam sales of the base client not that expensive - can and will get squished no matter how many proxies or VPN's or nonnypipes the harasser uses - as a best effort by support.
They would like you to like their game. Get in touch with support if you think something was really out of order.
Wow this thread got kinda off topic, but I guess I shouldn't be too shocked. I'm still mainly interested in hearing people's justifications or rationalizations for their positions, as opposed to proposed solutions to proposed problems or the like. We have plenty of threads dealing with various purported problems in Elite and just as many proposing solutions. I wanted to step back from diagnosing or curing anything to just get a better handle on a particular viewpoint that seems to consistently crop up.
Now then...
I disagree. We are not talking about the minute details of game code or specific algorithms determining thruster output. I mean the very basic premise that the Elite universe is about freedom, to be good, or to be bad, and that player interaction in the above discussed ways is a possibility. Those "rules" of the game I would argue are quite clear to most who chose to play. Even if, however, I conceded that a player could not reasonably be expected to understand these simple rules, that in no way invalidates the rest of the OP, which if you read carefully, is not actually making any claim, but rather asking for others to defend their own positions.
These are a good points, and yes the dodgeball analogy is imperfect in the sense that the game has a much more specific end goal than Elite does. However, it is not the point of the analogy to imply that the end all purpose for playing Elite is simply PvP interaction. It is rather intended to highlight a type of implicit consent to an activity which sometimes has undesirable aspects. Any other sport would suffice equally well to make that point, and in this regard, I don't see it as overly problematic. In fact, you've extended the analogy quite nicely here to reflect better the more complicated situation in Elite.
I've already addressed why the analogy is (as all analogies are) limited, but that is no reason to dismiss it out of hand. I maintain that it is useful in certain respects for getting at part of this complicated issue (which is what analogies are often best at after all). As for your experience, I obviously will not contest it, but I would add that I myself have played exclusively in Open for over 200hrs and have only been killed maliciously one time by another player. All other interactions have either been positive or avoidable or mutually agreed upon. I personally wouldn't say the universe is "stuffed to the brim" with griefers, nor that open is about all combat all the time. In that total time playing in open, I'd estimate less than 20% of it was spent doing any combat (including sitting at RES sites for bounty hunting). Of course, neither one of our individual experiences is enough to make any general claims about the larger composition of the player base, so they are anecdotal evidence at best.
Now then...
I disagree. We are not talking about the minute details of game code or specific algorithms determining thruster output. I mean the very basic premise that the Elite universe is about freedom, to be good, or to be bad, and that player interaction in the above discussed ways is a possibility. Those "rules" of the game I would argue are quite clear to most who chose to play. Even if, however, I conceded that a player could not reasonably be expected to understand these simple rules, that in no way invalidates the rest of the OP, which if you read carefully, is not actually making any claim, but rather asking for others to defend their own positions.
These are a good points, and yes the dodgeball analogy is imperfect in the sense that the game has a much more specific end goal than Elite does. However, it is not the point of the analogy to imply that the end all purpose for playing Elite is simply PvP interaction. It is rather intended to highlight a type of implicit consent to an activity which sometimes has undesirable aspects. Any other sport would suffice equally well to make that point, and in this regard, I don't see it as overly problematic. In fact, you've extended the analogy quite nicely here to reflect better the more complicated situation in Elite.
I've already addressed why the analogy is (as all analogies are) limited, but that is no reason to dismiss it out of hand. I maintain that it is useful in certain respects for getting at part of this complicated issue (which is what analogies are often best at after all). As for your experience, I obviously will not contest it, but I would add that I myself have played exclusively in Open for over 200hrs and have only been killed maliciously one time by another player. All other interactions have either been positive or avoidable or mutually agreed upon. I personally wouldn't say the universe is "stuffed to the brim" with griefers, nor that open is about all combat all the time. In that total time playing in open, I'd estimate less than 20% of it was spent doing any combat (including sitting at RES sites for bounty hunting). Of course, neither one of our individual experiences is enough to make any general claims about the larger composition of the player base, so they are anecdotal evidence at best.
This is how that should read. The "(as long as the Conda is not engaging in bounty hunting or piracy)" you added all by yourself.
Please do not edit the quote to misrepresent what I wrote, it's actually against the forum rule, I'll appreciate it if you separate that from your quote of me, thanks.
And I did not add it myself, I provided evidence and reasoning as to why it is the case, if you would like to refute that argument, I would like to see points of discussion instead of a flat denial.
Gotcha. Ok, so the one example you gave was that of two statements "a conda killing a sidewinder isn't griefing". That is a true statement in all situations. A conda killing a sidewinder does not make it griefing. "Repeatedly killing the same player is". That's a seperate stand alone statement. They do not have any relationship to each other. It doesn't matter if it is conda on sidewinder, conda on conda or even sidewinder on conda, if you keep killing the same player and they don't want to be engaging in combat, it's griefing by FDev's standard.
Going back to your e-mail, they are clearly not responding to one thing with a caveat, but rather responding to your two questions. You directly ask "is it legitimate to use the 15 second logout to nullify ..." then you ask "is it intended". They reply to both questions. "Yes we consider it legitimate." "No it was not intended." The difference between using the menu and pulling the plug is that one is the intended way to log out of the game, the other is not. They made an error, but it is still playing within the rules of the game. If you can't see that they are directly answering your two questions, I suggest that you may want to consider a further follow up with them to verify it, but it's pretty explicitly clear what their intent is in that response.
Let me emphasis, I don't really have a horse in this race. I play primarily in private groups and when I go in open, it's in a ship I don't mind if I lose. I don't see any real point in menu logging, but I really can't see any justifiable way to argue that the e-mail you posted says that FD considers it an exploit to use the logout given the context of what questions you asked and how they responded.
Last edited:
I'm not seeing the support for your particular statements in that link. And the statement that "Ultimately it is about context" with the last sentence a link to the EULA seems to support my latest statement. Anyway It doesn't really matter to me since I play in a Private Group.
Specifically avoiding combat or pirate ships when you are in an unarmed trader or explorer is offensive, disruptive, or harassment now?
Come on Mr Fang, you can do much better than that, surely!
Premise 1: Conda killing a Sidewinder is not harassment.
Premise 2: Repetitive killing of a player is considered harassment.
Conclusion: Conda killing a Sidewinder is a part of the game, if the Conda pilot isn't killing the Sidewinder pilot repetitively.
Negation of proposition 2 is the sufficient condition for proposition 1, or you can say that proposition 1 has an exception, which is stated in proposition 2.
The response I received makes it clear what are the sufficient conditions to make menu log an exploit instead of a legitimate mechanic, and I made that clear in the recent posts.
- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -
Avoiding can be done via in-game mechanics such as dropping to low wake to escape interdiction or high waking after an interdiction. These are legitimate mechanics for escape for that they have proper counters in piracy and bounty hunting. Menu logging, on the other hand, does not.
- Status