Not every death is a result of a griefer.
Same old song about cheaters
- Thread starter S.at
- Start date
- Status
While that is true it is also true that a large portion of the games population were forced out of open and into solo/Private because of said griefing.
Open is practically a ghost town now. I see maybe 3 people a night. The one or two times a week when someone actually interacts with me they are usually trying to kill me.
I am seriously considering moving out to Jacques. It seems like it has a bigger population of players in open than the bubble nowadays.
Last edited:
There goes the neighbourhood! 
There goes the neighbourhood!
Have you been? Is it nice a Jacques? I always wanted to visit but I find myself jetting 30 of 40klys in the opposite direction chasing down an idea.
Many times. Since it's near a nebula, it's quite the room with a view. Also it's near some sightseeing areas.
But it's been a month or so since I last visited, so I don't know what 2.2 has meant for Jaques. At the moment I'm near Sag A, then planning to go back. Already plotted a route that goes through some planetary nebulae.
Agree... but Frontier , cant fix Combat "don't want to play fair cheating crowd" because the whole instance foundation is BROKEN , which is why there's no Proximity (voice) Chat thousands of different routers , ISP all trying to work out what bloody handshake they need, it's a stupid setup, cost effective , by useless for multi playing
Ive manged to wing once , after 3 attempts , lasted 5 mins , got disconnected never tried again.. ( and port forwarded)
ED as a multi player game is pointless , this the diehards just don't want to face up too, it's a single player game ONLINE , with other players around , that's all it will ever will be...
But the Solo (^ point 5) , is a good idea. As soon as your under fire 'then cheat' a X goes against you , x amount of times you Combat cheat, your placed in Solo
be that fixes their problem...lol not
Last edited:
![[VR] Merkir](https://forums-cdn.zaonce.net/data/avatars/m/141/141091.jpg?1553527154){kind=avatar}
I gave a partial solution that included CL penalties on page 11 of this thread (less than a day ago, damn), but it was pretty much ignored.
Having just scanned the 15 pages that have been added since then, my conclusion is that most of the PvPers here just want to whinge, not provide anything constructive. (Most, not all!). I was on their side in the beginning but they're turning me against them by the nature of their posts.
If you PvPers were smarter, you'd all get together to find some consensus which best suits you, then present that to FD as a consolidated group of dedicated PvP players. FD may still ignore your suggestions, but there's strength in numbers. You just have to organise.
YEP !
https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showt...and-Mission-Mat-Storage?p=4703927#post4703927
ps combat escaping , is me been sarcastic
Last edited:
Peer to Peer networking at its finest.
Don't give up, keep trying. I almost felt a single jimmy rustle.
The other irony here is "he escaped in the wrong way!".
The crowd that complains about combat logging calls it unnecessary because "you can high wake" while failing to see the hypocrisy in then complaining about a different method to do the same thing.
The practical problem, of course, is how not to punish people when your application crashes or your connection hiccups.
The ideological problem is "who is hurt and how?"
The crowd that complains about combat logging calls it unnecessary because "you can high wake" while failing to see the hypocrisy in then complaining about a different method to do the same thing.
The practical problem, of course, is how not to punish people when your application crashes or your connection hiccups.
The ideological problem is "who is hurt and how?"
It seems rather pointless to have this argument when E's multiplayer would have to be changed from P2P to client-server in order to close all the avenues of ending a player encounter without risk. Between the cost of coding it and the massively increased server requirements (including servers in multiple regions to make latency manageable), I don't see that ever happening.
There's not even any way to punish people for it. If player A terminates their connection to player B, all the transaction server knows is that the connection closed. There's no way to know which player closed it, or that it wasn't a network error somewhere between them. If you assume that any lost P2P connection in combat is deliberate and punish whoever was loosing at the time, unscrupulous players can terminate the connection while winning a fight in order to cause the other player to be punished.
This game was built from the ground up in a way that ensures any player interaction can be ended immediately by either party without consequence. The upshot of this is that player interaction can only be driven by carrots; the stick simply does not exist. If players are ending interactions and you want it to stop happening, the only course of action is to make those players want to have the interaction.
TL;DR: Theories about making combat logging impossible or punishing players for doing it aren't worth the pixels they're drawn with because they can't be implemented. Think of ways to make players not want to combat log.
's multiplayer would have to be changed from P2P to client-server in order to close all the avenues of ending a player encounter without risk. Between the cost of coding it and the massively increased server requirements (including servers in multiple regions to make latency manageable), I don't see that ever happening.There's not even any way to punish people for it. If player A terminates their connection to player B, all the transaction server knows is that the connection closed. There's no way to know which player closed it, or that it wasn't a network error somewhere between them. If you assume that any lost P2P connection in combat is deliberate and punish whoever was loosing at the time, unscrupulous players can terminate the connection while winning a fight in order to cause the other player to be punished.
This game was built from the ground up in a way that ensures any player interaction can be ended immediately by either party without consequence. The upshot of this is that player interaction can only be driven by carrots; the stick simply does not exist. If players are ending interactions and you want it to stop happening, the only course of action is to make those players want to have the interaction.
TL;DR: Theories about making combat logging impossible or punishing players for doing it aren't worth the pixels they're drawn with because they can't be implemented. Think of ways to make players not want to combat log.
Indeed - the game should offer gameplay for not combat logging. I'd hesitate to use "reward" or "incentive" though - as that too would be open to abuse.
FD have ways of detecting some methods of combat logging - and absolutely no way of detecting others. I even challenged the devs to a game of it once - purely for testing purposes of course
FD have ways of detecting some methods of combat logging - and absolutely no way of detecting others. I even challenged the devs to a game of it once - purely for testing purposes of course
Rinzler o7o7o7
Banned
I'm 100% in open play all the time, even when exploring.
Not even close.
Goodonya. That's the way to go. Everybody else who pirates or murders in Open, please take note. PVPing in Open but making money safely in Solo is being hypocritical.
Which is what I do and even encourage.
- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -
No, people who complain about menu logging make the point that you can just as well high wake.
Combat logging on the other hand is an instant disconnect and doesn't give a chance for the attacker to disable for syphoning.
I made some additions but it probably weren't needed, sure, go for it.
- Status