I have no idea what you're trying to accomplish by being so relentlessly contrary, Mags. One could be forgiven for thinking that you're arguing for the sake of arguing at this point.
Removing rammers
- Thread starter eldon113
- Start date
I have no idea what you're trying to accomplish by being so relentlessly contrary, Mags. One could be forgiven for thinking that you're arguing for the sake of arguing at this point.
The only contrariness I see are those repeating the same "evidence" which really provides no answer to the question.
"Also reports to the contrary. " is quite literally contrary in response to a factual statement that "since 2015 there have been a number of players who have done just that and there has been an avalanche of butthurt about FD's seeming inactivity ".
I see the word "Also" which immediately revokes your comments validity.
As per the other thread, I agree that combat logging is an exploit. However, there's no logical link between your two quotes and I think it's poor use of English to call it "cheating".
A pragmatic approach doesn't find quotes like these very useful either. Note that the EULA forbids changing your HUD colours much more emphatically than it references combat logging, because changing the colours involves modifying game files. I don't regard changing colours as an exploit though.
(Just in case anyone else does... I've never changed my HUD colours!)
Let's try an analogy. You're playing monopoly and you have a hotel on Mayfair. Another player lands on it and whilst it's a big hit to their finances they could still continue playing after giving you the money. Instead, they rage quit. Would you want to play a game with that person again?
Due to the design of ED, even if I block someone I am still playing with them as their actions affect everyone's game.
Changing HUD colours isn't going to get the same attention as I doubt there's any detriment to another player's gameplay by doing that. Causing a detriment to someone else's game is against the ToS, so that's what any action would be for.
Quite right. I'm simply pointing out that the EULA is tougher on changing colours than it is on clogging.
Considering that roughly 8 of 10 rams are shadowrams as things stand now (I mean desync rams: i. e. they are only happening from the POV of one side while they are merely close flybys from the POV of the other player), well...
It's probably just a catch-all statement. I suppose they could enforce it, but in this case they'd be crazy to do it. It certainly wouldn't be a good look.
So the issue raises its head because you don't want to be their content? Q.E.D.
Combat logging isn't mentioned specifically in the ToS, but Sandro clarified Frontier's stance on it back in 2015.
Combat Logging: Update
Hello Commanders! This is a quick update to let you guys know what were looking at regarding the issue of combat logging. For claritys sake, combat logging is when a Commander ungracefully exits the game (e.g. using ALT + F4 then shutting down the game process) to avoid defeat, destruction...
web.archive.org
Of course since the ToS are hardly the law Frontier can do pretty much what they want regardless... there have been instances of people being punished or even shadow banned for combat logging, but on the whole since it requires repeated breaches and enough complaints from witnesses, combat logging has seen rampant use, both in multiplayer and in single player, as a means of avoiding consequences.
As for ganking, it's a game about shooting spaceships, there is nothing inherently wrong about it as it's part of the premise. Some instances of it can break the TOS don't-be-a-d* clause if taken too far though, but to this day that's been limited to stream sniping the charity streams and circumventing player group bans to keep harassing their members.
Last edited:
How would anyone know if logging is rampant in Single player, other than either doing it themselves or solely by hearsay? Genuinely curious
(Reminiscent of all of the botting in solo comments...)
Rams occurring at distances they should not is definitely a problem, but that's more of an issue with changes to networking and latency compensation, as well as ship closing velocities having gotten out of hand (relative to what the former two could handle..there is no way to make ~1km/s closing velocities with a 400ms ping always look good from both perspectives). The collision damage reductions were made well before these were so prominent and helped turn collisions from something to be avoided into something to either be ignored, or actively sought out, even if there was only a small advantage in ship mass.
Ships apparent locations should more accurately reflect their actual locations and high speed collisions should be something to be avoided, even for the larger/tougher object.
For the record, I've listed the major changes to collision damage that I recall below:
Beta 3.00 (the pre-release one)
- Dropping collision damage to about 3/8ths of what it currently is - Should deal with a lot of problems of insta-death collisions (90% sure they did this largely in response to collisions with Federal Fighters in CZs that were using a bugged fuel mass calculation making them weigh millions of tons for collision purposes...if anyone recalls the specific changelog/version they addressed that issue in, please remind me).
1.1.0 & 1.1.01
- Collision damage update:
- Damage is now calculated at both ends and each apply half, it should no longer be possible for one party to miraculously escape undamaged from a collision
- Changed the mass/velocity to damage calculation, it should now be more consistent and harder to damage large ships with small ones, even at high speed
1.1.02
- Collision damage tweak - Restore the check that prevented multiple lumps of damage from the same collision. Also make the damage split based on mass slightly more exaggerated
I'm pretty sure they also messed up glancing blow collisions at some point, probably in 1.1.0. Collision damage should be more significantly affected by relative change to momentum than just mass/velocity...it's not how much energy something has, but how much is absorbed by the impact. I know the game takes this into account to some extent, but I still see plenty of collisions where ships slide past each other, losing almost no energy, and still take damage comparable to them colliding dead on.
Hm, given that I could dish out more damage to NPC than using my guns in 2.1 was my last impression. Now it's 3/8ths? They sure know how to nerf vanilla players thoroughly.
The 3/8th change is from 2014; the pre-released Beta 3.00, not the Beyond 3.0 beta.
Boosting into stuff used to be really bad.
Yeah, clipping a fin of an Asp while entering a station -> baoom.
Ah, thanks for clearing that up. It was my last resort to handle enemies.
Nah it's cheating. Players on Xbox figured out that if you report a Clog to Xbox as "player left early", Xbox will ban them.
