World is not binary. There are black and white things, grey ones and complicated things with full spectrum of the rainbow.
That one is a binary one. Do not blame me. There is no deep here. Just saying. Case is simple.
Last edited:
Why task-kill combat logging in Solo is a cheat and can affect others
- Thread starter Truesilver
- Start date
World is not binary. There are black and white things, grey ones and complicated things with full spectrum of the rainbow.
That one is a binary one. Do not blame me. There is no deep here. Just saying. Case is simple.
It does affect the BGS and that way it affects every player. The question is does it affect the BGS enough to really care about it?
I don't think it does, but only FD has a chance to know if it does.
I understand that, and I just explained why this isn't related to the topic.
This is probably going to sound dismissive and anti-debate so I'll apologise up front
Cheaters will always try to cheat, rule benders will always try to bend rules, exploiters will always try to exploit. The only thing that will prevent any of these (to some extent) are any mechanics in game or the policing stance that FD take outside of the game.
Personally in Solo/Group I haven't had the actions of others spoil my game experience, even though technically they may be doing something that affects the BGS. I don't play in open.
Cheaters will always try to cheat, rule benders will always try to bend rules, exploiters will always try to exploit. The only thing that will prevent any of these (to some extent) are any mechanics in game or the policing stance that FD take outside of the game.
Personally in Solo/Group I haven't had the actions of others spoil my game experience, even though technically they may be doing something that affects the BGS. I don't play in open.
Yes, just like I said, it isn't measurable.
Not caring and accepting that combat logging is cheating are two different things. I understand that you don't care but do you agree that it is cheating?
It's when a Cmdr kills the process instantly by ending the task (the software) or physically disconnecting the network cable, so as to escape imminent destruction.
I spelled it out in that way to distinguish from using the in-game option to quit to main menu after (if in danger) a 15 second delay.
Although PvP-ers consider both to be a dishonourable way to escape PvP, the former - the task-kill - is considered by FDev to be cheating whereas the latter - the 15 second menu log - is not.
Wait, combat logging is task killing?
I thought all the time its logging out in the middle of combat!?
Well yeah task killing is cheating; but I had to kill it several times last weak (not in combat) due to hang ups.
The game crashed several times too (once in a HAZ RES).
I thought all the time its logging out in the middle of combat!?
Well yeah task killing is cheating; but I had to kill it several times last weak (not in combat) due to hang ups.
The game crashed several times too (once in a HAZ RES).
I haven't seen a single person on this thread claiming that combat logging isn't cheating. Why are people so obsessed with it? Could we just discuss the issue at hand instead of going off topic and getting the thread locked?
PS
Sorry, forget about it. Since it's mentioned in the title I think it's a valid question.
Last edited:
This seems like a pretty naive view... Do tell, how does FDev distinguish between someone genuinely losing their connection to the servers during play (combat or otherwise) and someone intentionally logging out because they want to avoid seeing a rebuy screen?
I mean, there are so many legitimate scenarios that will see players disconnected, e.g. due to FDev's own servers throwing up errors and kicking players out during times of high traffic (happens frequently), that it's nowhere near straight forward.
I'm not sure if there even exists a way to determine an intentional disconnection from a non-intentional one. And with a game like Elite, whose servers are faaaar from 100% robust ALL THE TIME, then they'd be asking for trouble by penalising players for a disconnections during play.
I think the current 15 sec countdown for log out is really enough. Sorry if you're a ganker who enjoys ruining people's fun for sport. Sorry too, if you're one of those terribly awkward people who gets worked up about the 3 players who actually combat log during PvE play, because it somehow nebulously affects your game.
Unfortunately, if FDev did anything more severe to punish disconnections, then you too would suffer for it, during times when a disconnection during play simply wasn't your fault. Taking this into consideration, do you really think it is worth it?
How often does anything described in the OP even happen though? Looking at my stats I have had 8 rebuys since whenever the last wipe was, the start of gamma I think? Five of those were "PvP" deaths - aka randoms murdering me for no damn reason - and one was a deliberate self-destruct. That leaves two PvE deaths. If I played solo and I was the type to log I would have had to do it twice in two years. Big ' deal.
Cheers for the explanation.
Tbh though, I can't see how rationally one method can be considered cheating and the other not, when they both essentially amount to the same thing.
Additionally, I can't see how your explanations in the OP really impact other player's in any significantly perceivable way? It does very much seem like reaching for exaplanations.
I mean, if you consider combat logging cheating, then cool. If FDev does then cool, but if the impact to other players in PvE is so minor that it needs serious mental gymnastics to try to explain, and if the remedial solution will mean that lots and lots of players who aren't disconnecting intentionally get unfairly punished, then is it really a issue that needs championing?
What I meant is that only FD can do something about combat logging. It's a technical issue and only FD can solve that - if they can solve it at all.
We players can discuss it for ages without solving or changing anything.
Lol... Good one. The jokes really keep coming in this forum...
Oh... You were trying to be serious. Ok.
Let me get this straight. Basically what you're saying is that players from Open (cause a Solo player would pretty much only look after himself and not really care what others are doing,) using Solo/Group to affect another player's game by Combat logging should be banned.
Well if that's the case and since detecting and proving combat logging is very troublesome, why not just prevent people from Open switching to Solo mode. Much easier to implement. Then you only have to deal with combat logging in Open.
You keep taking about PvPer's consider it dishonourable, PvPer's consider it cheating, PvPers etc, etc.... And your talking about Solo mode? Seriously? Didn't realize Solo mode had PvP. People seem to be redefining what PvE and Solo is all the time.
Last edited:
right on: world is not binary. some things are
does CL affect me at all as a PvE player is binary (it's a yes)
does CL affect me as a PvE player is not binary. the amount is not measurable small as babelfish said. so it's an effective "no"
of course. it is ruled as exploit by the devs (or as cheat, don't care) that is sufficient for me. i'm german and consider myself lawful-neutral.
Last edited:
Sure, this is an Elite-like game.
Load Elite (the original) in an emulator or similar. Take your cargo-less Cobra III, and jump to Riedquat. A bunch of pirates (more than just a wing of 4, most likely) will do that game's equivalent of an interdiction, and you won't be able to do that game's equivalent of a high-wake (because you won't have enough fuel left) and you won't be able to do that game's equivalent of a low-wake (because all ships have infinite mass lock factor there). They won't even be particularly good ships and you will still die. No cargo scanners back then, so they shoot first and loot your wreckage later.
Load FE2/FFE. Take your starter ship, and jump to any system other than the completely safe ones (Sol, Barnards Star). Try to reach the station alive. In most systems this will involve multiple pirate interdictions, and you will die. Not even to top-end ships or skilled pilots, just to the terrible AIs those games had, because at this stage they basically need two hits to kill you, and you'll need about fifty to take out the whole wing. If you try to run, you may be able to use your ship's speed to escape temporarily, but when you hit turnaround and start decelerating they'll catch you again, and again, and again: if you thought Elite Dangerous had chain interdiction problems... Still no cargo scanners then either, so they shoot first and loot your wreckage later.
Now, Elite Dangerous is a bit different, because the NPC interdictions have been toned down a lot in their frequency, are much easier to escape, are generally 1:1 fights rather than attacks by wings, and even a starting Sidewinder is a lot tougher than a starting Eagle/Saker from FE2/FFE. So unlike the previous games there's an expectation being set by the game mechanics that you won't lose your ship - even an E-rated unarmed junk heap - and anything that can cause it to happen is therefore wrong.
That's not been the case in any of the previous games - in those, you could quite easily (before you'd equipped your own ship to ridiculous levels, that is) be attacked by overwhelming force without warning and without any practical means of escape: your only guarantee of protection was to be able to identify dangerous locations in advance, and not go there until you had a ship which could take them and the skill to use it. In both FFE and the original Elite (less so in FE2) even the system you started in was not actually very safe - though there were nearby systems you could jump to which were.
(So, if I think it's fine for an NPC wing to destroy a Sidewinder, I can hardly object if a player wing tries the same with more success)
This a really great example, anicdotal of course, but I suspect if the OP of even FDev actually started looking at player data, they'd realise that PvE players probably combat log so infrequently that it'd be really really really hard to justify taking any action against it.
The only scenarios that I can see where a player would sooner combat-log, than simply high/low wake out of an instance, is when they find themselves in a combat situation that suddenly and rapidly develops from a situation of the player being in control, to one of the player being ganked by numerous NPCs without recourse to flee.... aka... Conflict Zones!!
If anything, I would suggest the solution would be to instead of penalizing the player for deciding not to allow the game to gank them, FDev instead fixes their rediculous CZ mechanics, that suddenly allow a whole host of enemy NPC ships to spawn right on top of you and instantly target you the player, as if no other hostile ships in the CZ exist.... players have been complaining about this forever, and still this same rubbish continues to happen.
- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -
Ah, apologies... I completely misunderstood your post.
I agree with you in principle. Although I'm personally not convinced that it's something that needs doing anything about anyway. Imho, outside of PvP, combat logging is a symptom of a problem with the base game's design.
With 400 billion systems to claim I as an explorer am really worried the unlikely event that some other CMDR tags a system I had tagged as well. Something that will happen anyway since my trips usually lasts for months.
Don't care. Even in a thread of it's own.