The Fix For Combat Logging (MENU LOG)

One problem with this game is we have a bunch of people complaining about combat logging (to which the answer is often "there are other modes") but then we have another bunch of people (which seems to include a considerable number of the first bunch) complaining that people shouldn't be allowed a solo mode and everyone should play in open.
The 'remove solo' argument is often made tongue-in-cheek because we all know Fdev would never get rid of any of the modes that already exist. But their inaction on a solution to combat logging is a problem. They said over a year ago that they were working on a solution (karma), that it would solve this issue.. but there's still no sign of it.

Whatever happened to the 'Karma' system anyway? Was it another one of those ideas that Fdev just quietly binned and hoped nobody would remember? *cough*Icarus Cup*cough*
 

Brett C

Community Manager
Frontier
Nice work on advocating for combat logging.

Curious how ship transfers breaks your immersion, but disappearing when you're about to die, doesn't. Funny that.

"Trolling." You can still wake out, or escape the zone you're taking damage, or just build your ship properly in the first place and git gud. + kill your attacker... But perhaps you have a better solution for 15 second menu cheating?
As per 'combat logging', this is our current official stance:

Hello Commanders!

To clarify: the official stance on exiting the game via the menu, at any point, is that it is legitimate. I suspect at some point we may increase the "in danger" countdown, but for now you just have to wait fifteen seconds.

However, we can't speak for how other Commanders view such actions.

For the record, when we talk about "combat logging" at Frontier, we mean the act of ungracefully exiting the game (either by ALT-F4 type procedures or by cutting the network traffic).
 
As per 'combat logging', this is our current official stance:
I'd seriously look into increasing that timer, any cutter can just boost away, start the countdown, and log off before anyone can do anything to him. At this point elite: "dangerous" has no risk whatsoever for anyone. Any pilot with half-decent skills can easily escape a gank from a wing of people (2-4), there is no need for menu logging to be allowed.
 
I'm not being held hostage by anyone.
Just increasing the timer upon hit wouldn't work because the confirmation absurdly comes after the timer.

They could just move the confirmation to the time you click quit, then have another button that will just destroy yourship and quit the game immediately. That way no one can abuse the timer as away to preserve in-game assets that were under threat, and no one can hold you 'hostage' because you can cleanly exit the game even faster than before.

How so? How could my proposal possibly lead to more combat logging?
The implication is that removing a sanctioned way to save one's ship when one screws up would be replaced by people just disconnecting.

There is probably some truth to that, but I would in turn consider it more incentive to actually enforce rules, rather than an excuse to retain a deficient feature.

Why don't more PvPers play CQC?
Why don't more boxers just join a swim team?

I've said it before but Elite Dangerous is a game that doesn't know what it is or what it wants to be, a sim, an RPG, a combat game, an MMO ...who knows?
Nothing exclusive about any of those things.

If your opponent can't blow up an idling ship in 15 seconds, they couldn't stop it from high waking either.
This is false. Many of the timer logs I've seen were due to destruction of someone's FSD, PP, or thrusters, or the interruption of an FSD charge. In many of these cases, the one using the menu to leave had essentially no way of salvaging their ship via gameplay, so they abdicated the gameplay to preserve their in-game assets.

This is not the intent behind being able to log off. The timer exists explicitly for some opportunity to allow one's vessel to be lost if that player decides to quit rather than allow the scenario to play out. However, the timer has always been implimented poorly and has not kept up with the durability of ships as the game as evolved.

I'm fine if they want to separate the combat timer in to various categories, like PvP, PvE, and environmental.

PvP could have a 30~ second timer, PvE stays at 15 (they don't care). And environmental (like guardian sites)can be zero, because it actually makes no sense that you need to wait because nothing is around to shoot you yet. Lol
There is no reason to have different rules for these situations. All of them are fundamentally the same.

CQC is unpopular because you can't waggle your e-peen in it
I have a 4.1 CQC KDR that I waggle any time anyone makes some sort of obtuse comment about how PvPers should just CQC.

CQC isn't a substitute for real/organic PvP any more than chess is a soldier's substitute for infantry training.

It isn't broken, so a fix is not required.
I disagree.

It's decidedly sub-optimal for both of it's intended purposes, which are:

1. to quit the game.
2. prevent people from quitting the game just to avoid in-game losses.

Number one is fixed by moving the timer to precede the count down; no more input needed so if your CMDR really isn't at serious risk, you can just get up and go. Number two is fixed by substantially increasing the countdown before the game cleanly exists, or by resetting the timer upon damage. Leaving the game in a situation where your ship would be destroyed otherwise should simply be an instant self-destruct.
 
My take on 'fixing combat logging' is to focus on the reasons why people combat log in the first place. I reckon this includes the exponentially vast gaps in ship performance that exist thanks to badly designed full-power-creep-mode-engaged ("definite upgrade") Engineering, the hitpoint overinflation, and inconsistency in other aspects of ship design.

That and how many people don't actually want PvP, but desire PvE. We've been saying it for years now, Fdev, we need an official PvE mode. One that is presented to players immediately upon firing up the game, and that takes the burden off of Mobius.
 
The fix for menu combat logging (abusing the 15 second timer.)... is simple.

Reset the timer to 15 seconds upon taking damage.
If you are continuously ANY taking damage, your timer will remain at 15 seconds.

This includes, but not limited to:

-Any incoming player damage.
-Any incoming NPC damage.
-Logging out when critical modules are 'destroyed' (Powerplant, thrusters.)
-Taking any heat damage
-Taking any corrosion damage.
-Taking any hull damage from inanimate objects.

It has been three years since release, and this still isn't fixed. You (FDEV) may not be able to directly solve task killing, but this will solve menu log cheating.

This is a multiplayer game. Fix it.
It isn't broken, so doesn't need fixing.
 
Per Frontier's definition, combat logging does not include use of the delayed menu exit feature (the latter may be used at any time) - they are aware that not all players will agree with their position:



.... and giving players a method of trolling other players (continually resetting their timer to stop them leaving the game) does not seem to be a reasonable change proposal, in my opinion, anyway.
Do you ever give up the grind of giving rational and reasonable responses? :)
 
The fix for menu combat logging (abusing the 15 second timer.)... is simple.

Reset the timer to 15 seconds upon taking damage.
If you are continuously ANY taking damage, your timer will remain at 15 seconds.

This includes, but not limited to:

-Any incoming player damage.
-Any incoming NPC damage.
-Logging out when critical modules are 'destroyed' (Powerplant, thrusters.)
-Taking any heat damage
-Taking any corrosion damage.
-Taking any hull damage from inanimate objects.

It has been three years since release, and this still isn't fixed. You (FDEV) may not be able to directly solve task killing, but this will solve menu log cheating.

This is a multiplayer game. Fix it.
I am 100% on board with this as long as my proposal is included. That proposal is that, once per week, I can target lock your ship and, with the push of a button, just blow you away.

Fair is fair, you want the ability to control my game, I get the ability to control yours.
 
I am 100% on board with this as long as my proposal is included. That proposal is that, once per week, I can target lock your ship and, with the push of a button, just blow you away.

Fair is fair, you want the ability to control my game, I get the ability to control yours.
What you mean is that you want to play in open while being risk-free because you can log at any moment, am I right?
 
What you mean is that you want to play in open while being risk-free because you can log at any moment, am I right?
Nope, I meant exactly what I said. IF you can prevent me from legally logging off so that you can kill me, then you should have to risk being killed outright. Turn about is fair play.

What happened here is that YOU don't like being told that you might have to be at risk in being a ganker, or more accurately, that you want the game mechanics to be skewed in your favor.

Oh, damn, I just pulled your maneveur and prejudged you.
 
Last edited:
I’d be cool if they’d just extend the timer to a max amount of time (if the player keeps taking hits) say 2 minutes, but then the log off happens automatically. This allows the player to go afk on the fly and not have to sit there waiting to log off. Sometimes you gotta answer the door, pick up the phone, turn off the bath, stop a cat fight outside, answer some pressing and immediate call for attention from a significant other etc. under those conditions even the 15 sec timer is too much. It needs be like a countdown with the option to opt out but no need to confirm.
 
Defense is disproportionately stronger than attack in Elite. Do you know why 'balanced' fights tend to last 10's of minutes?
Just because you die in your Coriolis suggested Asp, doesn't mean that it's an imbalance issue. If you have a basic knowledge of how to submit, evade, and highwake, combined with even a slight knowledge of defense mechanics, you can avoid a gank 9 times out of 10.
Love the fact you ignored all the points in my post that you don't like, and instead focused on your "git gud" point.

Ever considered that people can't "submit, evade, and highwake" if the ganker attacks your ship while they're parked on a planetary surface with their attention completely elsewhere?

And the sacrifices are few. 1. Shield. 2. Boosters. 3. Proper core internals.
LOL.

Shield: sure, never fly without a "decent" one. Perhaps not fully-optimised because guess what, not everybody has maxed out all of the Engineers yet.

Boosters: What, Shield Boosters? How many? 3? 4? (that's what people seem to recommend) Maybe my ship only has 2 utility slots. Maybe I need some for scanners / other utilities?

Module/Hull reinforcements? Again, how many? Maybe I want/need some spare internals for the actual career I want to pursue in ED?

"Proper" core internals? How much more "proper" than Engineered "A" rated can you get? Again, not everybody has maxed out Engineers and *shock horror* perhaps not everybody has the funds to do so!

Should everybody be forced into Solo until they can afford to make the "few sacrifices" you want to force on the entire player base?

----

So yeah, my comment stands - balance out combat-optimised vs more general purpose builds, and you'd both get rid of the "10 minute fights" in the uber-optimised combat builds, as well as allowing non-optimised builds a fighting chance to escape (_IFF_ they're good) .


But pointless discussing this circular argument further. So /thread for me.
 
Love the fact you ignored all the points in my post that you don't like, and instead focused on your "git gud" point.

Ever considered that people can't "submit, evade, and highwake" if the ganker attacks your ship while they're parked on a planetary surface with their attention completely elsewhere?



LOL.

Shield: sure, never fly without a "decent" one. Perhaps not fully-optimised because guess what, not everybody has maxed out all of the Engineers yet.

Boosters: What, Shield Boosters? How many? 3? 4? (that's what people seem to recommend) Maybe my ship only has 2 utility slots. Maybe I need some for scanners / other utilities?

Module/Hull reinforcements? Again, how many? Maybe I want/need some spare internals for the actual career I want to pursue in ED?

"Proper" core internals? How much more "proper" than Engineered "A" rated can you get? Again, not everybody has maxed out Engineers and *shock horror* perhaps not everybody has the funds to do so!

Should everybody be forced into Solo until they can afford to make the "few sacrifices" you want to force on the entire player base?

----

So yeah, my comment stands - balance out combat-optimised vs more general purpose builds, and you'd both get rid of the "10 minute fights" in the uber-optimised combat builds, as well as allowing non-optimised builds a fighting chance to escape (_IFF_ they're good) .


But pointless discussing this circular argument further. So /thread for me.
TBF, Swizzy has shared some explorer builds that are both very viable for exploration and very gank resistant. It IS important to have a build which is prepared for what may come. “Winning” the scenario in that instance is simply being able to escape and with a little knowledge and practice one can be extremely safe while going about their business.
 
Counterproposal: each gank requires a $10 hunting fee paid to FD, or for those unable/unwilling to earn a living, mandatory 30 minute listen to (no mute allowed) Barney the Purple Dinosaur (or equivalent).
Just as reasonable, more socially acceptable.
 
I'd seriously look into increasing that timer, any cutter can just boost away, start the countdown, and log off before anyone can do anything to him. At this point elite: "dangerous" has no risk whatsoever for anyone. Any pilot with half-decent skills can easily escape a gank from a wing of people (2-4), there is no need for menu logging to be allowed.
how how to do that in a Type 9, Type 6, and a few other ships that are not that fast....If it just requires half decent skills...
 
how how to do that in a Type 9, Type 6, and a few other ships that are not that fast....If it just requires half decent skills...
Basically you get very close to the star after the jump and turn your back to it, then select a high wake target. After that, you check comms panel and network traffic for players while safe from interdictions.
If there's any, you scan them to check if they're in a wing, if they are you get the fudge out of that system and come back a while later.
 
I'd seriously look into increasing that timer, any cutter can just boost away, start the countdown, and log off before anyone can do anything to him. At this point elite: "dangerous" has no risk whatsoever for anyone. Any pilot with half-decent skills can easily escape a gank from a wing of people (2-4), there is no need for menu logging to be allowed.
Maybe you just need to realise that PvP is very much optional in Elite and certainly not the focus of the game.
 
CQC is unpopular because you can't waggle your e-peen in it, it creates no drama, no salt.. It's just a training mode really (for basics only, there is much more to PvP than you can learn in CQC).

I keep saying this but if they added a main ship dueling module to CQC players would use it and it would cause Elites' e-sports side to take off massively.
Yes, the waggling of the EP, drama and salt are what makes a considerable section of the so-called PvPers tick. They will use every high horse, every excuse, to maintain the status quo where they can feel superior to players less interested and/or savvy in combat. They don't want a fair fight, they want a power trip.

Of course the real challenge is spoiling their fun while not ruining it for the "legit PvPers". PvP as in a competitive and combat-oriented game is what some people want, and rightly so. It needs to be supported. One way to achieve it is to build more game play around bounty hunting, which would satisfy the need to pew pew against a human opponent while at the same time bringing consequences to the antisocial types getting their kicks out of bullying other players. Oddly enough, even though this would bring more PvP to the so-called PvPers (ie. gankers, not the real ones) against challenging opponents, they don't seem interested... (which pretty much validates my assumptions about their motivations)

I think CQC should be extended to the "actual" game, ie. have some sort of in-game combat sport. It could be in the form of a league, with winners getting fame and fortune. Somehow I could imagine it being a thing in the Empire? Could have multiple divisions, either by ship type/size (or perhaps a price cap?) or by combat ranking? Outfitting is a major part of the art of combat, and CQC lacks it.
 
What you mean is that you want to play in open while being risk-free because you can log at any moment, am I right?
I play almost exclusively in open, regardless of being mostly a trader/explorer. The risk is there and needs to be there, otherwise the game could just have a big "CLICK HERE TO WIN" button somewhere. But I want the risks to be predictable ones that I can opt in for, for potentially greater rewards. That's just basic game design: games should never seem overly unfair, risks and rewards need to be in balance. If I want unpredictable and unfair, I turn to real life instead of games, thank you.

This argument basically boils down to who bears the risk: gankers want to continue ganking with little consequences, stressing the word "Dangerous" in the name of the game. They don't practice what they preach, there's little risk or danger for them and that's how they want it. Risks and danger is for lesser gamers, they want to enjoy their power trip.
 
Yes, the waggling of the EP, drama and salt are what makes a considerable section of the so-called PvPers tick. They will use every high horse, every excuse, to maintain the status quo where they can feel superior to players less interested and/or savvy in combat. They don't want a fair fight, they want a power trip.
To be fair most of the trash talk and ego stroking tends to happen between PvP groups these days, rather than ganking scenarios.

Of course the real challenge is spoiling their fun while not ruining it for the "legit PvPers". PvP as in a competitive and combat-oriented game is what some people want, and rightly so. It needs to be supported. One way to achieve it is to build more game play around bounty hunting, which would satisfy the need to pew pew against a human opponent while at the same time bringing consequences to the antisocial types getting their kicks out of bullying other players. Oddly enough, even though this would bring more PvP to the so-called PvPers (ie. gankers, not the real ones) against challenging opponents, they don't seem interested... (which pretty much validates my assumptions about their motivations)
I've always supported more PvP bounty hunting mechanics, despite being a pirate. I want to be hunted in game, it brings something more interesting to open play. I created this a couple of years back.. I'm still surprised Fdev have not developed this key part of the game more, considering bounty hunting is a primary profession in the ED universe.

I think CQC should be extended to the "actual" game, ie. have some sort of in-game combat sport. It could be in the form of a league, with winners getting fame and fortune. Somehow I could imagine it being a thing in the Empire? Could have multiple divisions, either by ship type/size (or perhaps a price cap?) or by combat ranking? Outfitting is a major part of the art of combat, and CQC lacks it.
I hear this argument a lot about CQC being added to the main game, but I find it hard to visualise... How would it deal with instancing spaghetti, interference, rule changes etc? I think an option to challenge players to a CQC match (main ship duel or standard fighters) via the main game menus would be a decent alternative, a bit like how we can do with multicrew. Here's my full idea about how main ship dueling mechanics could enhance CQC beyond a limited interest fighter mess about...
 
Top Bottom