Same old song about cheaters

[IndigoWyrd]

This is the only part of your post I have any issue with. In your water balloons analogy, if I am able to determine that something I don't want any part of is happening (eg it's bunch of kids I know play rougher than I'd like), I would avoid the area. I may use some form of authority if I thought the situation warranted it (ie tell bounty hunters, round up a posse), but I certainly wouldn't rely on their compliance that I am not part of their game. I will play elsewhere.

Either you quoted the wrong part, or you left out what your issue with this happened to be, or I must confess missing it, so clear this up for me. But I'll counterpoint what you're quoted, by pointing out "if I am able to determine that something I don't want any part of is happening" that this is a part of the issue itself - seeing that someone, perhaps someone you've never seen before is in the area, you don't know what their intentions happen to be, often until it is too late.

Coming back to your response "(eg it's a bunch of kids I know play rougher than I'd like)" - if it happens to be a bunch of new kids you've not met before, you won't know how rough they play until you're playing with them. And at that point, you say "Hey, you are playing rougher than I like. Thanks for the game, but I'm out" (you just 'combat logged' on them), is it right for them to say "No you're not. Once you start the game you can't quit"?

The same holds true here - there is no way to know what that other hollow square's intentions might be - did they just drop in behind you because they happen to be going to the same place or are they planning to interdict you? If they do happen to interdict you, do they explain their intentions - announce they want to rob you, or do they simply open fire on you? Or do they communicate they have no intentions except to test out interdictions and send you on your way? Since there is no such a thing as an "intention detector", and not everyone is going to announce their intentions, what is the "correct" response at this point? And one other very real possibility - what if that other hollow square doesn't happen to speak your language?

I've lost count of how many times I have, in countless other games, I have happened on someone who may want to engage in a duel, or even coop together, who speaks a language I do not, or conversely, I have run into people who I may warn - "This is my territory, leave or prepare to fight" and they do not understand me. From my perspective, I will generally either give them a pass, or illustrate my intentions - a warning shot, a drawn weapon, a defensive position, or a combative emote - anything that communicates my intentions. But that's just me. I try to make a habit of not being a tool.

 

[Riverside]

Either you quoted the wrong part, or you left out what your issue with this happened to be, or I must confess missing it, so clear this up for me. But I'll counterpoint what you're quoted, by pointing out "if I am able to determine that something I don't want any part of is happening" that this is a part of the issue itself - seeing that someone, perhaps someone you've never seen before is in the area, you don't know what their intentions happen to be, often until it is too late.

Coming back to your response "(eg it's a bunch of kids I know play rougher than I'd like)" - if it happens to be a bunch of new kids you've not met before, you won't know how rough they play until you're playing with them. And at that point, you say "Hey, you are playing rougher than I like. Thanks for the game, but I'm out" (you just 'combat logged' on them), is it right for them to say "No you're not. Once you start the game you can't quit"?

The same holds true here - there is no way to know what that other hollow square's intentions might be - did they just drop in behind you because they happen to be going to the same place or are they planning to interdict you? If they do happen to interdict you, do they explain their intentions - announce they want to rob you, or do they simply open fire on you? Or do they communicate they have no intentions except to test out interdictions and send you on your way? Since there is no such a thing as an "intention detector", and not everyone is going to announce their intentions, what is the "correct" response at this point?

You correctly interpreted my rabble

I see what you mean about unknown players. In a known danger spot (eg a CG) it's easy enough to accept that either I don't go there in open or I am cautious & my initial assessment will be done in my gunrunner Cobra (low target value plus unkillable so far & cheap to replace if I do lose the hull).

Strangers can be IFF'd (Identify Friend or Foe) by assessing their loadout, behavour etc. I enjoy this part of the game, guessing who's a trader or a PvE hunter etc. It takes experience, but little experience is required to know what trouble looks like.

Strangers don't know my intentions either, although they can work it out the same way I do if they are paying attention. An FSDI (if fitted) is at the bottom of the loadout list, so it's easy to check for.

I am very much in favour of rewarding the attentive, I try to play the game intelligently, cautiously. I'd be in favour of hull loss (death) having more consequence, if only to encourage more players to think twice before acting.

 

[GluttonyFang]

Thank you.And yes, I do completely agree - Bounty Hunting and Piracy are real professions, and while they can be practiced on NPC's, it frankly is far less interesting and challenging than interacting with another actual person.Now Bounty Hunting does not require much interaction, as it has a very simple and straightforward premise: Pilots marked as "Wanted" are to be blown up.Piracy, on the other hand, almost necessitates player to player interaction. Ideally Pirates should not be destroying other ships. And any "good" pirate is going to have some level of understanding - not wanting someone's mission cargo, just regular cargo, not destroying the ships they are robbing, and, conversely not being the ones to log out themselves when their "helpless" prey turns the tables on them and ends their reign of terror in a hail of blasters and bullets. And I'm willing to bet at least one of them has as well.But, I'll also point out that we, the players, are not "the law", nor even enforcers of "the law". That role remains solely in the NPC hands of System Authority and Internal System Security - until such a time that we are able to join these factions and be commissioned as law-enforcement officers, which would open the door to many, many interesting missions and new styles of game play. And like any sandbox game, while we are free to make up our own rules to our own games played within the sandbox, these rules are not "law", and not everyone is obligated to play by "our rules". Let's take the all the way to the analog world - in days long past, we would go into the outside world to "play". We would make up our games, agree on the rules, and play by those rules. And if someone else happened to come into our area, they might find themselves targeted by waterballoons, nerf darts, flashlights - whatever it happened to be that was a part of our games.And sometimes they would want to join in our games. Sometimes they would not. And those of us that were not beginning to show signs of needing professional help would simply accept that not everyone wanted to play our games, and we'd leave them alone.Coming back here - and I will just pointedly ask - if we happened to cross paths in Open, and you should decide I look like a good target and you should happen to desire to pirate me and I say "I don't want to play your game, leave me alone and pirate someone else" are you going to respect that, respect me and respect my experience, or are you going to open fire on me, bombard me with hatchbreaker limpets or otherwise continue to harass me because I don't desire to play your game by your rules?Or perhaps a better question - Would you attack a group of Fuel Rats because they happened to be in your hunting ground?And this remains one of the biggest reasons I play 99% of my time in Open - because I want to enjoy the game without having to deal with other people and their visions of what the game experience is to them. And if you do happen to see me running about in Open play, I'm likely only taking video of someone else doing whatever they happen to be doing, or explaining various elements of the game to day-0 players who find themselves overwhelmed by the experience. Or I might be making wakes for people to scan, or I might have been blowing someone up by request to clear their bounties, but I don't believe this is required any longer.I won't deny either that the role of "Galactic Pirate" did catch my attention when I first started considering picking this game up, but I never did get into it. I found too many other occupations to be far more interesting and entertaining, and I came to realize that, at heart, I am a naturally law-abiding galactic resident.. for the most part.

I think the fundamental point of disagreement is that you believe Open mode is where combat logging is utilized to avoid unwanted interaction and legitimately so. Since that is the case, I cannot agree with it, since I view Open as the wild west in need of proper crime and punishment and addressing to rampant combat logging. I think this might be the shortest summary of the conversation. Edit: Also, following your line of argument would allow wanted players to state "I do not wish to be hunted" and execute combat logging to enforce it, which is something I don't think I can ever agree with.

 

[JerryLove]

I think the fundamental point of disagreement is that you believe Open mode is where combat logging is utilized to avoid unwanted interaction and legitimately so. Since that is the case, I cannot agree with it, since I view Open as the wild west in need of proper crime and punishment and addressing to rampant combat logging. I think this might be the shortest summary of the conversation. Edit: Also, following your line of argument would allow wanted players to state "I do not wish to be hunted" and execute combat logging to enforce it, which is something I don't think I can ever agree with.

The only person who can possibly lose out because of combat logging is someone looking to collect a player bounty.

Meanwhile: pretty much everyone loses is disconnecting while in a fight results in death. The people trying to play solo their own way lose, the people trying to not get killed by griefers and basically player-killers lose. The greifers who picked the wrong fight lose (not that I care for them). The solo players getting killed in a combat zone (one of the few ways I can find to still make money) lose.

No. Ending combat logging would be appeasing a very small niche' at the cost of basically the whole community.

 

[IndigoWyrd]

I think the fundamental point of disagreement is that you believe Open mode is where combat logging is utilized to avoid unwanted interaction and legitimately so. Since that is the case, I cannot agree with it, since I view Open as the wild west in need of proper crime and punishment and addressing to rampant combat logging. I think this might be the shortest summary of the conversation. Edit: Also, following your line of argument would allow wanted players to state "I do not wish to be hunted" and execute combat logging to enforce it, which is something I don't think I can ever agree with.

I believe Open play to very much be a "wild west", where System Authority and Internal Security are the Sheriffs and Marshals, and everyone else are merely the residents. And I do believe that in Open combat logging is used to avoid unwanted interaction, otherwise no one would complain about it, because it could not have any effect on them. Yes, some of those residents take up arms and side with the Sheriff or Marshal (bounty hunters), others drive the stage-coaches (traders), and some don black hats and rob the coaches, shoot up the saloons, sheriffs, marshals and those who side with them (pirates and other outlaws). Correct me if I'm wrong somewhere.

And as I mentioned, I spend most of my time in Solo, because I don't like the wild west. I don't much care for horses, think chaps are for strippers or The Village People, never wanted to rope a steer, and think 10-gallon hats are for hiding 1 ounce heads. But plenty of people do, and I don't begrudge them that. But sometimes I do turn up in Open, not to run missions, engage in dogfights, or make anyone else's business my business - I come in to teach day-o players the things they need to know to get on their feet, or shoot video of other people engaging in various activities. I don't engage in Powerplay, because politics don't interest me, and because, well, that's a whole other topic..

But I am pressing for an answer again - Would you allow someone to say "I'm not interested in what you're doing" to simply go about their business if they didn't simply log off, but stated their non-desire to participate, or would you force them to participate simply because they are there?

 

[DaveB]

The thing about combat logging is that it's LAME. It's openly confessing to the rest of the game that you have no skill.

pewpew-style PvP players will hold you in contempt because you ducked outta there.

Pirates will get frustrated with you because they probably weren't gonna blow you up anyway, unless you refused to pay the "tax"

If you were wanted and CL-ed on a bounty hunter I don't even want to start speculating on the negative opinion that guy will have of you.

If you're ok with the yeast sludge at the bottom of my beer-bucket being a better ED player than you are, by all means keep combat-logging. I'd rather not play with you anyway.

FD can't really "fix" it so the "fix" is for the rest of us to point, laugh and heap on the derision... which I think you can pretty much guarantee we will continue to do.

 

[Fendalton]

Combat Loggers? I thought this thread was going to be about Hex Editors, they're the REAL cheaters.

 

[GluttonyFang]

I believe Open play to very much be a "wild west", where System Authority and Internal Security are the Sheriffs and Marshals, and everyone else are merely the residents. And I do believe that in Open combat logging is used to avoid unwanted interaction, otherwise no one would complain about it, because it could not have any effect on them. Yes, some of those residents take up arms and side with the Sheriff or Marshal (bounty hunters), others drive the stage-coaches (traders), and some don black hats and rob the coaches, shoot up the saloons, sheriffs, marshals and those who side with them (pirates and other outlaws). Correct me if I'm wrong somewhere.And as I mentioned, I spend most of my time in Solo, because I don't like the wild west. I don't much care for horses, think chaps are for strippers or The Village People, never wanted to rope a steer, and think 10-gallon hats are for hiding 1 ounce heads. But plenty of people do, and I don't begrudge them that. But sometimes I do turn up in Open, not to run missions, engage in dogfights, or make anyone else's business my business - I come in to teach day-o players the things they need to know to get on their feet, or shoot video of other people engaging in various activities. I don't engage in Powerplay, because politics don't interest me, and because, well, that's a whole other topic..But I am pressing for an answer again - Would you allow someone to say "I'm not interested in what you're doing" to simply go about their business if they didn't simply log off, but stated their non-desire to participate, or would you force them to participate simply because they are there?

If people choose to be in Open, anything goes. The only way a person will convince me to leave them alone once I set my eyes on them is by running properly or making me run. As long as there's no cheating involved, it's fair game.That's the whole point of Open for me, a sandbox where hostile and friendly events can occur.

 

[Asp Explorer]

FD can't really "fix" it so the "fix" is for the rest of us to point, laugh and heap on the derision... which I think you can pretty much guarantee we will continue to do.

Indeed Dave - but for some people the sheer annoyance and irritation they can cause is their motivator. Nothing annoys chest-beating pew-pews as much as someone who combat-logs on them for the lulz. It works them up into a frenzy something fierce - and then they say / do rather silly things and provide even more lulz. My favourite example is still that person on Xbox who somehow managed to get 400 different people so incensed they said all sorts of things - and he was laughing all the way.

Indeed - it could be said that it's the only form of real PVP in Elite.

I don't think it's a good thing - so there really needs to be a good way of ensuring that the best gameplay is to be found in the game itself and keeping everyone happily playing. Of course, it's been discussed to death for years, and we are no further on

 

[The Wallet Inspector]

I am surprised the cheaters don't just do what some people on this thread have admitted to, and don't bother logging. They just open up their modem settings and ban players without having to log. Certain active members on this thread have in the past openly admitted to using 3rd party progs or options to kick players from their instance, and FDEV have done nothing about that. The game is full of cheaters and exploiters, and credit to players like GF who still play the game fairly... You can brag here about being a cheater, but it is actually against the forum rules to call them a cheat. So basically this forum is practically a safe space for cheaters. In any other game, you brag about it, they would exclude you from the wider community.

 

[GluttonyFang]

I am surprised the cheaters don't just do what some people on this thread have admitted to, and don't bother logging. They just open up their modem settings and ban players without having to log. Certain active members on this thread have in the past openly admitted to using 3rd party progs or options to kick players from their instance, and FDEV have done nothing about that. The game is full of cheaters and exploiters, and credit to players like GF who still play the game fairly... You can brag here about being a cheater, but it is actually against the forum rules to call them a cheat. So basically this forum is practically a safe space for cheaters. In any other game, you brag about it, they would exclude you from the wider community.

Well, irony would be thick considering my preferred profession in-game. Heh.

 

[Captain Willard]

LMAO There is no pvp in this game, it's open season on any and everyone. Another fail thread.

 

[Asp Explorer]

LMAO There is no pvp in this game, it's open season on any and everyone. Another fail thread.

That is exactly why the people giving lulzbunnies connection rates a serial port would be ashamed of are bathing in purest lulz

 

[Gunnet]

Where is the ability to combat log actually detracting from the game? In every scenario I can think of it seems to be neutral at worst unless a gameplay change is made first.

Logging vs NPCs: While doing this would certainly (to me) ruin the experience, if someone enjoys Elite more by doing it they're not harming anybody.
Logging vs piracy: As it stands, piracy is essentially a roleplay action on the part of both involved players. The pirate has little to gain and the "victim" is only participating because they want to. Although I could see it being a problem after a hypothetical piracy overhaul.
Logging vs PVP: Presumably PVP groups remove any member who combat logs during an event, not to mention the loss of respect. Being excluded from their community should be enough to deter people from doing it.
Logging vs bounty hunting: Is this even a thing? With the size of player bounties you'd have to claim a ridiculous number of kills to make up for even a single rebuy, there are no effective tools to track down wanted players, and bounties can easily be cleared with a suicidewinder.
Logging vs griefing: Obviously it's not ideal, but until there is a real risk or deterrent to griefing it's better than nothing.
Logging vs bugs: Nobody could reasonably argue that logging to avoid dying in a way that would have otherwise been reimbursed by Support harms the game.

Am I missing a scenario here?

Before anybody wonders and/or accuses, the closest I've ever come to combat logging myself is experiencing a BSOD while doing a base assault mission.

 

[Craith]

I combat logged about 6x in the last 2 days by using the task manager to kill the process.

Why? Because the game crashed in a CZ. Some will say that is not a combat log, and I agree, but how should a computer know that - especially a remote one?

 

[sutex]

I combat logged about 6x in the last 2 days by using the task manager to kill the process.

Why? Because the game crashed in a CZ. Some will say that is not a combat log, and I agree, but how should a computer know that - especially a remote one?

GOD ..here if you where under fire , Ive stuck down your ship.... oh well

 

[mosteen]

Here are my two cents.

I have appx 600h into the game, I have focused on trade, missions and exploration. I play exclusively in open, solo just doesn't give me anything, I love the risk. I've deliberately kept my combat ranking down to avoid NPC interdictions and I'm unpledged, I keep the speed limit when my radar is populated, generally trying not to do stupid things.

I have exploited the game mechanics to get rich, but my Ranger grade in Exploration is pure as can be, no neutron farming (is that a cheat too?) I have a Corvette and a nice flat at Jameson where my six ships are parked. Sucking at PVP never stopped me from enjoying the game. I'm getting good at running away though And, I build my ships to suit my needs. Lvl 5 dirties, FSD and Shield Gen are the only engineering I've done so far.

Now, I have been interdicted and killed by players and NPC's plenty, I take it on the chin and continue. Before I read about CL here, I never knew what it was. And, besides, I'm too busy with my adrenaline rush whenever in harms way, I don't think I could find ESC anyway

Do I condone CL? Frankly I can't muster too much of a sentiment either way. Personally I would never interdict or attack an unwanted player or an NPC, but that's just me. I fully support the piracy trade though, I just never found it very interesting, yet.

If I where to take a stand, I'd be inclined to say that an unwanted player with an empty cargo hull, would be in their full right to CL if interdicted / attacked, and didn't want to fight.

If the player had bounties and a good load of rares and CL at the moment they see a red blip, I'd call it cheating. Why they even play in open, beats me...

Could that be a valid criterea, if DEV would ever look into CL as an issue? Unwanted + empty + CL = OK, wanted and/or with cargo + CL = Cheating?

Personally I love the excitement of open, you never know who you meet or what's going to happen next. I like to think that I'm playing the game as I would if it was real, I calculate my risks and play as smart as I can.

I think cheating is individual, the cheaters knows that they are cheating and I suspect it ruins their own experience more than they ruin it for the "victim of the cheat", after all they won, albeit on walkover...

Fly safe cmdrs, and remember, some day, I'll bite back

Cheers,

 

[Forumate]

The only players that complain about combat logging are pirates and griefers. And I mean REAL griefers. Players that intentionally try to upset other players for their own enjoyment.

 

[Kerrash]

Bit of a loaded question from a Mod?

What do you think the answer is, Kerrash?

Not loaded, just an observation.

The game is not competitive by nature but players project their own ideas of what it means to 'win' onto the game.
If you take that away, is there anything that people can cheat other than themselves?

 

[Siranui]

Not loaded, just an observation.

The game is not competitive by nature but players project their own ideas of what it means to 'win' onto the game.
If you take that away, is there anything that people can cheat other than themselves?

The game is not competitive, right up to the moment when it is. It's either a single player game or -sometimes- a multi-player competitive game, or somewhere in between. That's what blurs the lines a bit and makes it more complex.

Someone who plays exclusively in Solo and combat logs because they don't want to have to do a 4,000LS SC again is cheating nobody but themselves and affecting nobody. If they brag to their friends about how much they've got, then it's empty and meaningless (and in my mind dishonest), but nobody is getting annoyed.

They could even form the habit of completely negating risk but still using high risk strategies; successfully hauling in an unshielded ship for maximum profit in a manner impossible if the game were played 'properly'. They're still only cheating themselves, but they are also forming risk-averse habits, where they no longer see the game as 'dangerous' and so the line of what is cheating and not moves further, in response to the game ever being 'unfair' to them. Still all well and good: They only cheat themselves (That soesn't mean the exploit should not be fixed, though.) They have a diminished game, but don't really see it as cheating. People don't like to call themselves cheats, so it's masked by justifying it as 'being clever' and 'outsmarting the game' or whatever.

But with the switch of a mode, suddenly they are online with others. Suddenly they can combat log with a hold full of Imperial Slaves whenever interdicted by a player. Suddenly it becomes cheating, because it is competitive. Sure: One can say 'a combat log is a win' if one is a pure PvP player and out for blood, and that's ok (in fact, I'm pretty sure it's an attitude that PvP players have to embrace, lest they simply get so frustrated that they leave the game), but I'm pretty sure someone earning a legitimate crust from 'honest' piracy would call it cheating when the person disconnects three times in a row.