nope. If you cannot kill the PP player within the menu logout timer, they could have gotten away anyway. And a bonus would violate the trimodal galaxy equivalency.
Why do people still care at all about clogging?
- Thread starter DemiserofD
- Start date
Im all for a PvE toggle so PvE players are not instanced with PvP players, also PvE players cannot damage other PvE players.
Legalising combat logging would just mean griefing would increase to interrupt players games to get them to get to alt+f4 thus ruining their enjoyment.
Its the reason a PvE toggle was proposed in the first place
Legalising combat logging would just mean griefing would increase to interrupt players games to get them to get to alt+f4 thus ruining their enjoyment.
Its the reason a PvE toggle was proposed in the first place
Sadly no one at FDEV has any more vision or interest in making true changes to the base game. I think OA's latest video has it right: ED is on it's shelf life, no more big updates, just narrative and small gameplay bits here and there until the last player quits and turns the lights off. ED may not be dead yet, but it also isn't in major active development any more.
1: Open in PP is the most dangerous situation, but also drives the most uncertain outcomes. FD acknowledged this openly, and also acknowledged the need for proper risk v reward.
2: Solo and PG PP does not normally feature other players, hence lower risk. Also, PP NPCs are sporadic and unengineered, and virtually no risk against engineered ships.
3: Logging out mid battle is essentially conceding defeat. At least here it has consequences which are then balanced by the greater rewards if you fail a few times- and to clarify, you lose the Powerplay component, not your ship either.
4: All this is optional (doubly so since pledging and open are optional), and you still have solo and PG.
Last edited:
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Frontier have effectively ruled out removing all means for players to damage other players in a PvE mode (ref. DBOBE in the Engineers launch stream and more recently a post by Bruce) - however an option, possibly even presented as a separate Open mode on the launcher, could indeed be used by the matchmaking system to ensure that only players with the same setting were instanced together - and, taking into account the fact that players kicked from a Private Group are also session kicked, if playing in the PG at the time, players with the PvE toggle set to "off" would reasonably be kicked from their session in Open if they fired on another player, interdicted another player, damaged another player, etc..
Indeed, a PVE toggle was ruled out by FDev
Yes, i've suggested a such approach in one of the previous Hotel California threads.
They could implement an additional Open mode, name it Open-Pve or Open-Coop and impose some no murder rules (as they do in the starter systems)
The moment you murder someone, you are kicked from the game back to the Main Menu and you cannot join the Open-Coop mode anymore.
They could implement automagically banning, first offense 7 days ban from the Open Coop mode, second strike - 21days ban, 3rd strike - perma ban from Open-Coop mode.
Sure, killing someone from the opposing force in a CZ does not count as a murder, but killing one of your green team member is a murder.
Killing a wanted player is not murder either.
However, someone trying to get someone else the wanted status (like station rammers) will get the perma ban following a report
Same, killing PP enemies will not count as murders, but killing your own PP mate will do.
Simple as it is. No toggles, no alteration of the rules.
Just law abiding citizens
And they get to keep the normal, no rules, Open - but my assumption this mode will be empty.
Same rules should apply for piracy etc as they are PvP in nature.
Interdict -> autocancelled if not legitimate
Hatchbreaker -> cannot target CMDR ships on open PvE
Collector limpets will not pick up items that are spawned by an action of another CMDR (no stealing in mining, no mat killstealing, no stealing of npc pirated goods)
Items intended for/owned by other CMDRs cannot be picked up and are pass through
Fire on non-legitimate CMDR target -> COVAS warning, further infractions = session kick, then session ban 7/30/perma days
Ramming non-legitimate CMDR target -> COVAS warning, further infractions = session kick, then session ban 7/30/perma days
Killing or being involved in a kill on a non legitimate target = session ban 7/30/perma days
CMDRs are pass through around stations and other protected special places. Their hitboxes are not considered interactible in physics calculation. If an NPC's hitbox intersects multiple CMDRs (special case), they become pass through as well to prevent exploits.
Being wanted is considered a PvP tag. If you attack a wanted CMDR by initiating the fight, all protections are off as the game mechanics must allow self defense. A wanted CMDR may however NOT attack illegitimate targets.
Last edited:
Firing on / ramming means that things like using weak and cold ships in RES, etc. are effective ways to kick PvE players out of the PvE mode. And because it's allegedly a "PvE mode" they might be less alert to such things than they currently are in Open.
Also needs "point defense/ECM/ramming should not harm limpets fired by other players" from your list, too, as well as "scans by other players will not worry their passengers". Probably some others I haven't seen mentioned before.
You probably want at least a wing exception for that collector limpet rule or this mode is actually worse than a basic PG or current Open for helping other players get started by going mining/hunting with them. As written it would also prevent trading of Odyssey materials without a Fleet Carrier (because the one you drop still counts as yours)
You also need a "CMDRs cannot use multicrew" rule to stop people using that to attract hostility to their host ships (or merely wasting resources by ramming SLFs into asteroids, firing off turrets when they know they'll miss, etc. etc.) if you're really set on preventing even indirect harm to other players.
So what's stopping someone in a Sidewinder or other fast and agile cheap ship attracting (PvE) station hostility then flying inside a passthrough T-9 or other big slow expensive ship to use them as ablative armour?
(Pad hogging of course still works too, unless you're extending this passthrough to allow infinite CMDRs to all share the same landing pad)
That gives an annoying exploit where a wing of two clean CMDRs attacks a wanted CMDR, but only one of the clean CMDRs fires on them - the other just uses regen beams on their friend, making the clean wing invincible. And you can't say "well, if someone attacks you then you can retaliate against their entire wing" to fix that without making "wing up with a PvEer, shoot your friend who happens to be a PvPer with a minor trespass bounty, let them flatten the PvEer" another option for "legitimate - but highly against the spirit of the thing - PvP in the so-called PvE mode"
It also makes "get someone a tiny PvE bounty so you can flatten them with your PvP ship" a perfectly "legitimate" way of attacking someone, which is probably not what people actually want from "Open PvE", especially in Odyssey where having small PvE bounties is encouraged. Wanted players would need to be just as illegitimate targets as (locally? or does using a KWS count?) Clean ones for any PvE mode to be usable.
Essentially you've got an Open PvE mode that doesn't prevent (or even necessarily punish the "right" person) in cases of PvP, but is also less convenient for some collaborative PvE activities than the existing PG/Open options.
There is an exploit-free Open PvE ruleset possible: it's this.
1) CMDRs in Open PvE can instance freely in supercruise, but not interdict each other. All perfectly safe.
2) CMDRs in Open PvE never instance in non-supercruise - they are always placed in separate instances like Solo would.
Whether that's actually worth implementing when it doesn't really provide much more than System chat already does, probably not.
Station fire is pass through (ignoring) unintended targets and always hits the intended target irrespective of the graphical representation.
And as you saw, yes, that's too complicated and why FDev won't make open PvE. So, tagging is out as well. Instead, legitimating clogging with a grace period within 15sec of begin of hostility is the easiest fix.
If this is abused for griefing, then well, blocking is your friend.
Last edited:
You think I'm saying that they shouldn't have been punished for the 5 to 1 exploit? No, they definitely needed to be... But combat loggers tend to get off light compared to other cheats.
As the one of the valuable assets for the members of a community is the reputation, most of the players' groups (squadrons, powerplay groups, etc) condemn / forbid combat logging with various degrees of punishment (from paying the "rebuy" to pay a multiple of it or even kick the player / remove tags). I do usually expose combat loggers in our YT videos as that's one of the best ways we have to deal with this [cheat]practice.
Non-issues should be punished accordingly. Making people play together properly is a game design topic. Not one of "punishment" - that's ridiculous.
I'm pretty sure I've taken friendly fire from a station before. It's difficult, but it can happen.
For one, why should reputation be a valuable commodity at all? Is a loss of reputation suddenly somehow going to degrade someone's knowledge of the game?
For that matter, why should combat logging degrade someone's reputation at all? Unless you are attempting to build a reputation as a hardcore PVP player, combat logging should have no impact on your reputation whatsoever. And even then, it shouldn't matter as long as it doesn't take place in a formal tournament where that is explicitly against the rules, AND where the rules are set up such that doing so gives a meaningful advantage.
I think a relevant analog is Cyclops gibbing. Frowned upon by the ax community, technically not playing the game as intended, but if a PVP player does it, it's not like they are going to lose PVP reputation because of it.
And neither are things that should be bannable offenses. It's not enough to be annoying to other players, it has to be a provable negative to the game as a whole, which has yet to be demonstrated.
I meant as a hypothetical fix against this exploit.
![[VR] Bulbulunufus](https://forums-cdn.zaonce.net/data/avatars/m/261/261245.jpg?1671230473){kind=avatar}
No, not polls, although they would be useful. I'm literally thinking that a proper analysis of the Inara data, with filtering out of biased data (e.g. an avid PvPer that only logs in once a month to move their carrier because they're playing something else at the moment), proper account taken of how PvP occurs in the run of play in a given timeframe, platforms, timezones, etc., etc., could be used to bring out something about player preferences. And to calibrate it you might create certain case studies, perhaps using large squadrons, where you can, based on things you can reliably glean about their collective playstyle, categorise them into "PvP heavy", light, medium, etc., whatever gradation is useful, and see how the percentages come out for those subsets. So you can base conclusions re: the player base as a whole into some kind of perspective that grades what a given percentage actually means in terms of recognisable, understandable cases. But it's a hard problem to tackle meaningfully.
Perhaps you're speaking more generally, and certainly it could be extended to other activities too. More generally still it would elucidate the limits of what can be inferred, if that's what you mean. Or perhaps you're just being skeptical that anyone could find out anything meaningful, but then why on earth quote your figures in the first place.
Insulting? Well, if I perceive that someone is peddling misinformation, particularly when it seems designed to marginalise a popular activity and by extension a sizeable constituency of the player base of this game that values it, I don't perceive it as my right, but pretty much civic duty to call it out aggressively. And if I feel targeted by that agenda, I'm liable to take it a little personally too. And if the person circulating it has a position of responsibility in the community, with a degree of power or influence over censorship here then it becomes all the more serious again, right? It's not because I want to be an asphole.
And you're the perfect illustration of my point. You've decided the conclusion a priory (look up "confirmation bias"). You've seen "small number" (significantly less than 50%) and equated it to "doesn't matter" because that's what you already thought. Funny example: imagine you've woken up dehydrated and at lunch time you've not been to the loo. Everyone else in the house is on holiday. Someone, who doesn't like toilets, does a statistical survey, finds the toilet hasn't been used all day and states "great! Let's remove it then!". Why not?? It's a small number, right? It's zero percent! Small number = insignificant? Or has the surveyor set up the problem wrong? Yes. It turns out everyone uses the toilet. An egregious and ridiculous example but it illustrates how important it is to set up your problem correctly. I've seen others robotically regurgitating these numbers without question or interpretation in other threads, after Robert posted them in this thread, "small number is doesn't matter always" they seem to chant.
I've constantly given examples of why you can't use Artie's stats in such a simple minded way. Why the problem is set up wrong. But you don't seem to care. I can't take your opinion seriously because you've not engaged in even the slightest analysis or reflection. Why do you even need a number if you already know the answer? Well, it's to have it "settled" isn't it, because no-one can argue with numbers right? It's intended to close down an argument. I have no reason to think FDev have engaged in a sufficiently serious investigation either, no matter how in their interests it would be to do so. I do take Robert's responses seriously, and not in a good way, because he hasn't allayed my fears that he fully understands what he's doing, whereas you're merely not thinking. I can be wrong, I hope I am.
Seriously, when I see 10%, referring to 30 day periods experiencing interdiction or ship destruction, and taking all factors as I estimate them into account, it seems high to me. I find it very encouraging. That a lot (way more than 10%) of players see PvP as part of their game.
Where I would agree, is that people who do "purely" PvP are a fairly small minority, (or "fringe" as you would frame it, presumably to emphasise their "otherness"). Yeah. Wall of text, really sorry.
They waste my time, so I'll do my best to waste theirs.
That infers that open exists exclusively for your benefit. These players are not playing in open for you. That being the case, you are the one who started the time wasting by attacking somebody who did not wish to be attacked.
You can hardly get mad at having your own time wasted when that's exactly what you intended to do to them.
What is "Cyclops gibbing"?