Do You Pull The Plug When Losing?

[Asp Explorer]

While I don't condone nor participate in plug-pulling (or any other disconnecting method) there are people who will do so - and it is entirelly out of every one else's control.

Perhaps if these people were persuaded with better gameplay from others, they wouldn't feel the need to do so. Of course, there is the chance that they are not running in Solo precisely to annoy the pew-pew crew and give them tears of raeg. Nothing wrong with that!

 

[Atinus]

There isn't anything in place to stop this and there NEEDS to be. not 15 secs but 2 minutes i would say and not traveling but just stationary idle. People would re-think pulling the plug next time and just warp out or stand and fight. I have only played this game in open (I LOVE IT) and pulling the plug is an issue that needs to be fixed.

The trouble will be distinguishing between legitimate Internet disconnects and those pulling the plug. My suggestion from back in the DDF was that in the case of a combat disconnect, the PC ships keep fighting as the AI takes over until the fight is over one way or another, after which it legitimately disconnects for you. That way if it was a legitimate disconnect, you are not penalized per se. And it would disincentivize plug pullers who likely will log in to see the insurance screen.

 

[Panzer]

I can and will spend trading time.

I won't waste it.

 

[Tigga]

The trouble will be distinguishing between legitimate Internet disconnects and those pulling the plug. My suggestion from back in the DDF was that in the case of a combat disconnect, the PC ships keep fighting as the AI takes over until the fight is over one way or another, after which it legitimately disconnects for you. That way if it was a legitimate disconnect, you are not penalized per se. And it would disincentivize plug pullers who likely will log in to see the insurance screen.

To be honest, most people don't DC. Most people use the in-game quitting mechanisim to escape in 15 seconds. This is more than enough time in a lot of cases, especially piracy. What would be great as a stop-gap would be a "xyz is qutting" message up in the top left, so I can stop botherering to piratie them/waiting for them to drop the cargo they said they would, and wipe them out.

Had two Asps quit on me today already. One of whom has done it before. Getting kinda old. These people just need to get removed from open for the time being.

 

[Atinus]

These people just need to get removed from open for the time being.

Using your solution, if you only do it to menu quitters but not to Internet disconnections, then the preferred method of combat disconnecting will be by cutting the Internet. If you then extend the barred from Open Play punishment to Internet disconnections, you will be punishing those who legitimately had an connection interruption and did nothing wrong. That feels wrong.

I really think just making it so that the AI takes over until the current encounter ends one way or another will remove any and all inclination to attempt to quit, either by pulling the plug or quitting to the main menu.

The way it came up in the DDF was just to have the ships continue to fly in a straight line, basically being a sitting duck. That didn't sit right with me because it punishes legitimate disconnections. So, I proposed the computer takes over and flies your ship solution as the only way to punish somebody who was losing and quit, and not punish those who, say, were winning and the Internet crapped out.

 

[Snakebite]

Could just be a rough day and came across a few more than usually. But seems "pulling the plug" is becoming more common in open play. Anyone notice this? Like I said, could just be a bad day.

I guessing that a *LOT* of people are not being honest here..... I estimate that around half the people I have engaged have pulled the plug when faced with certain death....

 

[Tigga]

I guessing that a *LOT* of people are not being honest here..... I estimate that around half the people I have engaged have pulled the plug when faced with certain death....

Certainly not half for me. List is at 37, whereas I must have pirated hundreds, most quit using the in-game quitting mechanism.

- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -

Using your solution, if you only do it to menu quitters but not to Internet disconnections, then the preferred method of combat disconnecting will be by cutting the Internet. If you then extend the barred from Open Play punishment to Internet disconnections, you will be punishing those who legitimately had an connection interruption and did nothing wrong. That feels wrong.

The barrier-to-entry for out-of-game quitting mechanisms is much higher. There may be more people using them, but fewer overall. That's fine with me. Obviously some sanity is needed, but if a player is reported multiple times by different players over a period of time, and they were in legitimate PvP with those players prior to the report (with a minimum time between reports, and a confirmed quit/DC) they should be given a little popup saying they're not allowed in Open due to disconnection/quitting infractions. Doesn't need to be for long the first time, and should go up with repeat offenses. Simples.

 

[Atinus]

The barrier-to-entry for out-of-game quitting mechanisms is much higher.

I respectfully disagree. In the above setting, the quitting commander is merely locked out of Open Play for a pre-determined period of time. In terms of gameplay, though, they lose nothing. No ship destruction, insurance premium payout, nothing. My way, they probably lose the ship and have to pay. And then they stop doing it.

 

[Tigga]

I respectfully disagree. In the above setting, the quitting commander is merely locked out of Open Play for a pre-determined period of time. In terms of gameplay, though, they lose nothing. No ship destruction, insurance premium payout, nothing. My way, they probably lose the ship and have to pay. And then they stop doing it.

Oh, I'm not against other punishments. Quite frankly though, I just want them out of my way. Your way is technically problematic, detection & punishment should be much easer.

 

[SuBSynk]

Oh, I'm not against other punishments. Quite frankly though, I just want them out of my way. Your way is technically problematic, detection & punishment should be much easer.

I think a combination of both your suggestions is the way forward myself.

 

[kurush]

I really think just making it so that the AI takes over until the current encounter ends one way or another will remove any and all inclination to attempt to quit, either by pulling the plug or quitting to the main menu.

You understand that AI exists only on your and other player PC, right? There is no combat simulation on the server. Also, many people mentioned the dreaded word "Firewall" on this forum and this is the method of choice of disconnecting the player you don't like from your game while otherwise staying in the game. Does it give enough clues to understand why your or any other suggestion here is just not feasible?

 

[Uueerdo]

I really think just making it so that the AI takes over until the current encounter ends one way or another will remove any and all inclination to attempt to quit, either by pulling the plug or quitting to the main menu.

The way it came up in the DDF was just to have the ships continue to fly in a straight line, basically being a sitting duck. That didn't sit right with me because it punishes legitimate disconnections. So, I proposed the computer takes over and flies your ship solution as the only way to punish somebody who was losing and quit, and not punish those who, say, were winning and the Internet crapped out.

Given the abysmal opinion many have of the NPC AI, I don't know if that is necessarily fair for legitimate connection loss either. Another idea that I haven't seen before that might be simple to implement is to cause disconnects (in combat only) to damage the hull and some/all modules a certain % (of total, not current); that way, at very least, the actual exploiter has a cost, and a legitimate disconnection doesn't guarantee a lost ship. As an aside, I think disconnections by aggressors (and perhaps higher bountied players) should have a higher damage rate; though I would not be surprised by traders making up the bulk of the exploiting population, I think the would be PK'er that "bit off more than they could chew" and pulls this kind of thing deserves higher individual contempt.

Edit: I would suggest this kind of penalty only occur on a verifiable server disconnection, not just p2p connection loss. Otherwise, it would be too exploitable by unscrupulous aggressors; and I doubt the server applying this penalty would be able to tell which party severed the p2p anyway.

 

[Tigga]

You understand that AI exists only on your and other player PC, right? There is no combat simulation on the server. Also, many people mentioned the dreaded word "Firewall" on this forum and this is the method of choice of disconnecting the player you don't like from your game while otherwise staying in the game. Does it give enough clues to understand why your or any other suggestion here is just not feasible?

I must be really dense, but I *still* don't understand why traffic can't just be rerouted through a third party or the server if two players can't see each other.

 

[Britannkic]

Is there a way to detect and differentiate an innocent disconnect from an intended and deliberate one?

if so then in the case of the deliberate, the ship should remain where it is and just continue on in flight in the direction the player last sent it etc etc sitting duck etc for whomever was attacking it

 

[kurush]

I must be really dense, but I *still* don't understand why traffic can't just be rerouted through a third party or the server if two players can't see each other.

Oh, it is. It just won't help because you can also dicsonnect that 3rd party or at least introduce enough lag to be able to get away. You saw those jumping ships, right? That's what you get because of lag. Frontier won't be routing everything through UK just because it will introduce unacceptable lag. And this rerouting won't happen immediately - the game has to understand that direct communication is no longer possible. And that time should be more than enough to recharge FSD and jump away The only technically feasible way to deal with it is combat modeling on servers with clients only sending events there. It means a) a complete rewrite b) likely not feasible because of the same lag if the servers are in UK.

 

[Lister_of_Smeg]

This issue really isnt hard to resolve as it was happening in DAYZ standalone for a long time. You simply have a disconnect timer where your player/ship is still active for 30 secs/1 minute upon !logging! (long enough to blow the chickens to hell)

 

[Tigga]

Oh, it is. It just won't help because you can also dicsonnect that 3rd party or at least introduce enough lag to be able to get away. You saw those jumping ships, right? That's what you can get by introducing lag. Frontier won't be routing everything through GB just because it will introduce unacceptable lag. And this rerouting won't happen immediately - the game has to understand that direct communication is no longer possible. And that time should be more than enough to recharge FSD and jump away

Oh, so you disconnect from the player AND the server.

I wonder who disconnected from whom....

Also, rerouting can be done in under 5 seconds. That's fast enough in my book.

 

[Chazzie]

I have to admit that I did pull the plug in the early days of the beta - mainly to get away from griefers, and frankly I'm not proud of it, but at the time most of the balance mechanics were not in.

Since release though, I've never pulled the plug and never will, most of the defence systems are in - and now it's down to the skill of the pilots to win an engagement.
There does need a system in place to control player disconnects now however, many of the suggestions here may help to solve the problem.

 

[Atinus]

You understand that AI exists only on your and other player PC, right? There is no combat simulation on the server. Also, many people mentioned the dreaded word "Firewall" on this forum and this is the method of choice of disconnecting the player you don't like from your game while otherwise staying in the game. Does it give enough clues to understand why your or any other suggestion here is just not feasible?

Ouch. So, on top of all that, players can remove themselves from another player's instance by blocking the other player's IP address, if I understand your post correctly?

Surely, there must be a way of hiding player IP addresses from being revealed to other players... Or, if you deploy the method, to have the game boot you as a real disconnect, and initiate the penalty.

 

[kurush]

Ouch. So, on top of all that, players can remove themselves from another player's instance by blocking the other player's IP address, if I understand your post correctly?

Surely, there must be a way of hiding player IP addresses from being revealed to other players... Or, if you deploy the method, to have the game boot you as a real disconnect, and initiate the penalty.

You got my message Another griefer feels the pain. And most of communication is direct, so your IP has to be revealed (watch for that firmware update on your router if you griefed somebody accidently and don't use default passwords ). And as I said earlier, there is surely no way to even detect who did the DC trick in this situation, especially if it is just a lag trick and not a DC trick (you restore your connection when you are at a safe distance).