Same old song about cheaters

[jasonbarron]

Certainly glad you weren't around for the Revolutionary War, I can just see it now: Hey you guys, hiding behind the rocks and trees - you're cheating, knock it off! When it's about survival there is no cheating, it becomes whatever it takes! I bet you'd complain if a guy brought a gun to a knife fight or turned and ran even. Besides, who made you the arbiter of cheating? Do you get to make the rules? People don't want to be destroyed by you then too bad for you. Maybe if you refund them the money they spent on the game they'll go play somewhere else and you can have this "game" all to yourself! IT'S A GAME! It's not affecting your health or well being if someone chooses not to allow you to destroy them by any means possible. Grow up.

This might be the dumbest equivalency I've ever read. You're somehow comparing the CLers to the revolutionary forces, and saying I wouldn't have been? Oh my. If we're going to make stupid comparisons, here's mine: the CLers would actually be the guys who stayed home and hid under their covers while people like me went and fought on their behalf.

Like you said though, this is just a game, and I have no problem recognizing that. And as far as being the "arbiter of the rules" is concerned, the rules are black and white my friend. I didn't make them up, or even come up with some off the wall interpretation, just stating what anybody who can read should be able to see for themselves

 

[AntiSocial]

This might be the dumbest equivalency I've ever read. You're somehow comparing the CLers to the revolutionary forces, and saying I wouldn't have been? Oh my. If we're going to make stupid comparisons, here's mine: the CLers would actually be the guys who stayed home and hid under their covers while people like me went and fought on their behalf.

Like you said though, this is just a game, and I have no problem recognizing that. And as far as being the "arbiter of the rules" is concerned, the rules are black and white my friend. I didn't make them up, or even come up with some off the wall interpretation, just stating what anybody who can read should be able to see for themselves

Wow dude, your analogy sucks! Hiding under the covers? Really? You're the one that advocates that people being destroyed allow themselves to be destroyed rather than use any means necessary to avoid it. As for rules, I'd sure love a link to the rules because I've searched and can't find them. Perhaps you'd be so kind as to link them. When I installed the game I saw no rules and as for accepting terms - well who reads those anyway? I've looked for the terms but can't find those either. Even the manual has scant info and I've spent a lot of time finding out things about this game on my own because, let's face it, very little information seems to be included even allowing for the training videos and sessions. Also the thing I see most on the sites advertising the game is that famous "Play it your way" well perhaps the CL players are in fact playing it their way.

 

[DefiledDragon]

Meanwhile: Getting rid of CLing would also make more people *vunerable* to greifers.
Meanwhile: Punishments for CLing would catch unlucky innocents.

So let's review what punishing CLers would do.
1) Cost FD money and resources that could be put elsewhere.
2) Punish the innocent.
3) Make more victims of griefers die.
4) Possibly reduce griefing a little bit.

You're right. Much better to allow people to go on cheating with impunity. That's always been a guarantee of success for any online game.

 

[AntiSocial]

You're right. Much better to allow people to go on cheating with impunity. That's always been a guarantee of success for any online game.

I guess that depends on how you define success for an online game. If by success you mean it pleases the most people or if it earns them more money when new versions come out. How about "allowing" (as if any player can allow any other player anything) people to just play it the way they want to - like the blurb said "play it your way" or to quote Fezik "My way's not very sportsman-like."

 

[DefiledDragon]

I guess that depends on how you define success for an online game. If by success you mean it pleases the most people or if it earns them more money when new versions come out. How about "allowing" (as if any player can allow any other player anything) people to just play it the way they want to - like the blurb said "play it your way" or to quote Fezik "My way's not very sportsman-like."

I mean success as in the online portion of the game doesn't die due to prolific cheating.

 

[AntiSocial]

I mean success as in the online portion of the game doesn't die due to prolific cheating.

Which online portion? The Solo, the Private or the Open? Aren't they all online? And in all of these posts throughout this thread, I've yet to see how Cling even n Open actually causes anyone harm. As for "the rules" rules can and often do change, are or aren't enforced and sometimes aren't enforceable. If and when I ever decide to play in Open, I'll determine if I CL or not. And even though some people don't seem to get analogies, let me try this one: I can see a cargo ship in the days of sailing ships being attacked by a pirate, now there's a fog bank close by into which said ship can disappear and not be found by the pirate or it can continue on course and hope for the best. I'd be inclined to go for the fog. But hey, that's just me, you "Play it Your Way"!

 

[rrobes]

It is most definitely NOT a circular argument my friend.

CLing is cheating. Asymmetrical player killing is permissible. Period. End of discussion. No shades of gray, just stark black and white.

Also, I'm going to call bull on the notion that if we remove "the cause for CL" we'll "likely see a reduction in CLing." Nothing except punishment is going to stop the CLer since they'll make up an excuse to justify their actions under any circumstance that involves the possibility of losing their ship.

My use of the word circular was indicative that this argument has been going "round" and "round" in this forum for what seems a long time. It also holds true by definition; as an example, a circular argument is one that starts by saying "Everything FD says/writes/programs must be true, by definition CL is not allowed", so no CL must be true, the rule. The answer is ready made as it refers back to the original supposition.

Were it so easy as black and white. then we could go on about our business. But for good or bad, to arrive at a equitable resolution, one must keep an open mind.

If you call "bull" on something you disagree, on something that that hasn't even been tried you are closing your mind, and from reading your previous posts, I get the impression you are a reasonable CMNDR, but maybe you are passionate about this topic.

TBH, we are not opposite in the argument. I agree that CL shouldn't occur, that it is not a desired outcome, but what I do believe is that there should be a balance.

And if you believe punishment should be dealt to the CL, then " nothing except punishment is going to stop the" the murderers as well, who justify their actions, should also be a given. Consequences for undesirable acts should cut all guilty parties.

Both CL's and those that kill indiscriminately justify their actions. Where is there a solution?

 

[DefiledDragon]

Which online portion? The Solo, the Private or the Open? Aren't they all online? And in all of these posts throughout this thread, I've yet to see how Cling even n Open actually causes anyone harm. As for "the rules" rules can and often do change, are or aren't enforced and sometimes aren't enforceable. If and when I ever decide to play in Open, I'll determine if I CL or not. And even though some people don't seem to get analogies, let me try this one: I can see a cargo ship in the days of sailing ships being attacked by a pirate, now there's a fog bank close by into which said ship can disappear and not be found by the pirate or it can continue on course and hope for the best. I'd be inclined to go for the fog. But hey, that's just me, you "Play it Your Way"!

You have no problem cheating in online games, I get it. What exactly are you expecting from your revelation? Validation? Won't get it from me I'm afraid.

 

[AntiSocial]

You have no problem cheating in online games, I get it. What exactly are you expecting from your revelation? Validation? Won't get it from me I'm afraid.

lol don't need validation or to cheat either actually but don't really care what other people do. As for what I do, depends on the situation. I just find it amusing that the people complaining about cheating are the ones being deprived of their prey like it's an absolute right for them to do as they please because the rules (which by the way, I'm still waiting for a link to) say they can.

 

[JerryLove]

You're right. Much better to allow people to go on cheating with impunity. That's always been a guarantee of success for any online game.

Yea. Stop development so that you can track and punish an action that has basically no negative effect. That's always been a guarantee of success for any online game.

PS. This isn't an "online game". This is at best a multi-player game (and given how unreliable that can be... well: perhaps they should put resources there?)

I'm sorry that my modding ruined Mass Effect and no one enjoyed it.

 

[AntiSocial]

Yea. Stop development so that you can track and punish an action that has basically no negative effect. That's always been a guarantee of success for any online game.

PS. This isn't an "online game". This is at best a multi-player game (and given how unreliable that can be... well: perhaps they should put resources there?)

I'm sorry that my modding ruined Mass Effect and no one enjoyed it.

Lmao! Shame on you, ruining a game!

 

[Aurinkoinen]

One crying threat again. There should be one pinned QQ threat so these constant crying about PvP issues would not clog the whole forum.

If your opponent combat log, take that as a win and move on. Easy.

 

[bitstorm]

What would be really interesting here, Jerry, would be for you to give up some of your in-game time so as to go and fly with AA for a few weeks in Eravate, then come back and post to say whether in light of your experiences, your opinion had changed.

I can't tell you it certainly would. I do think it's possible, though.

I am not 100% sure what you are implying with this.

But if say for example crime and punishment were a thing, and assuming some level of effectiveness.

Would AA then be doing less work around Erevate?

And although not a direct route to reducing combat logging, would it instead be helping to address the root cause of the "worst type" of combat logger? And so reduce CLing by the back door as it were.

I mean we can divide combat loggers roughly into two pools, as we can the PvPers, and of course one sort of person might be common to both pools, and it's these that are the real problem regardless of PvP/PvE/CL persuasion.

 

[Truesilver]

I am not 100% sure what you are implying with this.

But if say for example crime and punishment were a thing, and assuming some level of effectiveness.

Would AA then be doing less work around Erevate?

And although not a direct route to reducing combat logging, would it instead be helping to address the root cause of the "worst type" of combat logger? And so reduce CLing by the back door as it were.

I mean we can divide combat loggers roughly into two pools, as we can the PvPers, and of course one sort of person might be common to both pools, and it's these that are the real problem regardless of PvP/PvE/CL persuasion.

I wasn't speculating about how we might change things, just considering the possibility that if those who consider combat logging to be a non-contributor to griefing (or even, a defence against griefing) were to fly with my old crew for a bit, they might change their minds.

I spent almost a year fighting griefers around Eravate and I do believe that the availability of the combat log costs massively more innocent destructions than it saves.

I mean, like 100-1 in the wrong direction.

The experienced, pre-meditated griefers in tricked out combat ships log whenever it suits them - that is, when they see no other way to escape. The new guys in the Sideys don't know what hit them and have no such opportunity. They usually report that they didn't know what was happening, then saw the rebuy screen a moment later.

I don't want to speak for AA, of whom I remain a friend though not a member - but I think I can say this. Nothing will make you more concerned about logging than flying with AA for a while.

[Forum psychology alert!] The fact is that there is no type of gamer on this planet more attracted to an Immortality Cheat than those who get a rush out of killing new players using a full-spec God-Mode vehicle to do it. The Deity thing is part of what these lepers of PvP seek.

Which is why they simply cannot stand AA cutting them in half and, universally - if they get blown up twice, I promise you, they leave. 'Two' is the magic number. The danger area is after 'one'. Will they become a logger, in response to that first spanking, or not?

It's nothing to do with creds. They have infinite creds. It's to do with them seeking one sort of human interaction and finding another.

The problem is, if they learn to log, they realise they can have it all. They are restored from being bullies who met the wrong kind of prefect to immortal, cruel deities once again. Which they like. They likey that a lotskie.

At that point, only the true God-Moders ... FDev ... can step in. Or not.

 

[jasonbarron]

I wasn't speculating about how we might change things, just considering the possibility that if those who consider combat logging to be a non-contributor to griefing (or even, a defence against griefing) were to fly with my old crew for a bit, they might change their minds.

I spent almost a year fighting griefers around Eravate and I do believe that the availability of the combat log costs massively more innocent destructions than it saves.

I mean, like 100-1 in the wrong direction.

The experienced, pre-meditated griefers in tricked out combat ships log whenever it suits them - that is, when they see no other way to escape. The new guys in the Sideys don't know what hit them and have no such opportunity. They usually report that they didn't know what was happening, then saw the rebuy screen a moment later.

I don't want to speak for AA, of whom I remain a friend though not a member - but I think I can say this. Nothing will make you more concerned about logging than flying with AA for a while.

[Forum psychology alert!] The fact is that there is no type of gamer on this planet more attracted to an Immortality Cheat than those who get a rush out of killing new players using a full-spec God-Mode vehicle to do it. The Deity thing is part of what these lepers of PvP seek.

Which is why they simply cannot stand AA cutting them in half and, universally - if they get blown up twice, I promise you, they leave. 'Two' is the magic number. The danger area is after 'one'. Will they become a logger, in response to that first spanking, or not?

It's nothing to do with creds. They have infinite creds. It's to do with them seeking one sort of human interaction and finding another.

The problem is, if they learn to log, they realise they can have it all. They are restored from being bullies who met the wrong kind of prefect to immortal, cruel deities once again. Which they like. They likey that a lotskie.

At that point, only the true God-Moders ... FDev ... can step in. Or not.

Fascinating look at this issue. It seems counterintuitive, but makes a lot of sense when you describe it that way. If I had more real world time to do justice to a team effort without letting wingmates down, I'd definitely give AA a try. As it is I have to carry on the good fight flying lone wolf style.

 

[Truesilver]

Fascinating look at this issue. It seems counterintuitive, but makes a lot of sense when you describe it that way. If I had more real world time to do justice to a team effort without letting wingmates down, I'd definitely give AA a try. As it is I have to carry on the good fight flying lone wolf style.

Thanks Jason. Actually AA as a player group is totally 'no commitment' and always has been, some put in an hour every two months, others 12 hours/day, so bearing in mind the work you've said you've been putting into PvP you'd probably really enjoy just attending one of their Sunday night sessions. Or for that matter just going to Eravate and making contact.

 

[jasonbarron]

Thanks Jason. Actually AA as a player group is totally 'no commitment' and always has been, some put in an hour every two months, others 12 hours/day, so bearing in mind the work you've said you've been putting into PvP you'd probably really enjoy just attending one of their Sunday night sessions. Or for that matter just going to Eravate and making contact.

Thanks for the info, Truesilver. Who do I announce myself to so they know I'm a friendly? I've noticed that I get a lot of hostility when I show up in my FdL (even though I'm sporting golden paint).

 

[TomP]

Thanks for the info, Truesilver. Who do I announce myself to so they know I'm a friendly? I've noticed that I get a lot of hostility when I show up in my FdL (even though I'm sporting golden paint).

Good question!

 

[AutoMechancal]

Thanks for the info, Truesilver. Who do I announce myself to so they know I'm a friendly? I've noticed that I get a lot of hostility when I show up in my FdL (even though I'm sporting golden paint).

Good question!

Come onto our discord server and announce yourself there if you like. There's almost always somebody on be them new or old.

 

[JerryLove]

It's nothing to do with creds. They have infinite creds. It's to do with them seeking one sort of human interaction and finding another.

You have support for this claim?

If the game had a crime and punishment system where the NPCs started reliably killing them (or attacking them and forcing them to log semi-constantly); that would be ineffective?