Please fix the Alt F4 exploit
- Thread starter Knorlac
- Start date
- Status
Actively 'quitting' the game and logging back on can be seen as 'too seriously', so it's not a good tact for you to take (not that you've had any good tact so far).
Your credits/ship shouldn't be a huge deal to you, just like losing combat shouldn't be.
Anyways, I certainly wouldn't be up for "friendly pvp chat" with someone that pulls stunts like that. Your suggestion about "having systems where pirating isn't allowed" is good, a bit like a sandbox in a sandbox, since obviously dying in a sandbox would be way too serious.
Nope, I take the mentality behind such behaviors seriously. The game itself, whatever it is, matters very little to me. Poor behavior reflects badly on upbringing, and upbringing is solely the responsibility of the parents involved.
Thankfully, my kids are pretty well-mannered. They don't act up, say please, thankyou, sir and ma'am, and are pretty well-behaved in public. Oldest just managed to skip his entire freshman year in fact! (Yes, I'm a proud parent, tease me all you want.)
Essays man, they're awesome for instilling discipline. Nothing worse than taking away all the technogagets from a teen, sitting them down with notebook and pen, and saying "Write".
Off Topic
Everytime i see this Alt F4 thread on the first page, memorys of players in Diablo 2 HC falling in panic pop up in my mind, when a TPK turned himsel hostile towards them during a baalrun etc. Those who tried to save their lifes using Alt F4, found their characters usually dead after their next log in because their chars where still in the game after they rage quitted to desktop
Everytime i see this Alt F4 thread on the first page, memorys of players in Diablo 2 HC falling in panic pop up in my mind, when a TPK turned himsel hostile towards them during a baalrun etc. Those who tried to save their lifes using Alt F4, found their characters usually dead after their next log in because their chars where still in the game after they rage quitted to desktop
Can't see this as a serious issue really with the play modes available.
Play solo or pve only group and go open play when wanting mindless pew pew pew and not caring if your win or lose.
I see it like this:
~ open play simulates real life (and this is an argument used by many that want the free for all aspect of open play)
~ solo play for those not wanting to interact at all with others (basically single player)
~ group play for those wanting to play with others but within specific guidelines or with a particular rule set (many people here say if you can't take the heat go to solo or group, join mobious etc etc)
About group play I think the same could be said to pvpers that they say to pvers, why should it go only one way?
Pvers that want only pve can make a group like mobious why don't the pvper do the same?
Tired of alt f4 then join the "John Wayne" group where:
and make your own rule set just like the pvers have done with groups like mobious.
Another thing open play is more about there not being a rule set period isn't it... because in real life some have honor and some don't etc etc.
As to the it pertains to how you were raised baloney I can only say the internet is notorious for people behaving in a manner they would never dare to in real life and thinking how someone plays a mmo or what they say reflects on their upbringing is ludicrous to the point that I need to think any parent thinking this must also be one of them new virginal parents that think their kids are little darling angels that never do wrong and is unable to hide anything from them...it's the teachers fault or the other kids are a bad bad influence.... lol
Play solo or pve only group and go open play when wanting mindless pew pew pew and not caring if your win or lose.
I see it like this:
~ open play simulates real life (and this is an argument used by many that want the free for all aspect of open play)
~ solo play for those not wanting to interact at all with others (basically single player)
~ group play for those wanting to play with others but within specific guidelines or with a particular rule set (many people here say if you can't take the heat go to solo or group, join mobious etc etc)
About group play I think the same could be said to pvpers that they say to pvers, why should it go only one way?
Pvers that want only pve can make a group like mobious why don't the pvper do the same?
Tired of alt f4 then join the "John Wayne" group where:
and make your own rule set just like the pvers have done with groups like mobious.
Another thing open play is more about there not being a rule set period isn't it... because in real life some have honor and some don't etc etc.
As to the it pertains to how you were raised baloney I can only say the internet is notorious for people behaving in a manner they would never dare to in real life and thinking how someone plays a mmo or what they say reflects on their upbringing is ludicrous to the point that I need to think any parent thinking this must also be one of them new virginal parents that think their kids are little darling angels that never do wrong and is unable to hide anything from them...it's the teachers fault or the other kids are a bad bad influence.... lol
Last edited:
Planetside is way different to ED. While it has client side hit/collision resolution there is no P2P network traffic - its s pure client server game in terms of the networking.
I've always questioned this attitude to "competition". Essentially, you're suggesting that one team go up against a team that hopelessly - hilariously - outmatches it, then expect the inevitable losers to show "sportsmanship". Why put them together at all?
Sure, I could roll on over to Eravate and blow the crap out of the Sideys and Adders in my A-spec Viper. I wouldn't enjoy it - it's sadistic and a little sad. Frankly if I started ganking players, I'd expect them to try to combat log and would be surprised if one didn't (they probably wouldn't have time, to be honest, but that's beside the point). Midnight_Sun323 made the point earlier that if he's in an unarmed and empty Type 6 with no outstanding bounty, and a Python (or any combat-oriented ship for that matter) interdicts and proceeds to take chunks out of his hull, he'd combat log. People have since gone on to call him a cheater, but frankly there's no purpose to the "PvP" encounter. No one seems to want to address that point.
Can't see this as a serious issue really with the play modes available.
Play solo or pve only group and go open play when wanting mindless pew pew pew and not caring if your win or lose.
I see it like this:
~ open play simulates real life (and this is an argument used by many that want the free for all aspect of open play)
~ solo play for those not wanting to interact at all with others (basically single player)
~ group play for those wanting to play with others but within specific guidelines or with a particular rule set (many people here say if you can't take the heat go to solo or group, join mobious etc etc)
About group play I think the same could be said to pvper that they say to pvers, why should it go only one way?
Pvers that want only pve can make a group like mobious why don't the pvper do the same?
Tired of alt f4 then join the "John Wayne" group where:
and make your own rule set just like the pvers have done with groups like mobious.
Another thing open play is more about there not being a rule set period isn't it... because in real life some have honor and some don't etc etc.
you made a fairly decent point right up until the end.
1. it's an exploit, and like mentioned makes pvp practically pointless, regarding if it can be fixed, unfortunately, i'm not 100% sure on that, but i remember reading a dev quote outlining, that they could not really stop this happening, despite people giving examples of how other games do it, not sure if it's a engine limitation, i don't know.
below for Dev statement on Combat logging.
2. your right, it could be overcome with a group specific pvp, playing to fair rules. But that shouldn't have to be the case imo, open play just needs this exploit resolved in some fashion, and open play can remain like a Sam Peckinpah classic "wild bunch".
3. you cannot combat log in real life, honour has nothing to do with it, you can attempt to flee a battle, risk being shot in the back, but you cannot teleport back to blighty from a warzone.
why play in open if only to abuse it? why not solo or mobius? no one seems to address that? in fact one of the dev's have there own thinking to why, i can post it here for you.
Hello Commanders!
A few points to hopefully let you guys know what our feelings are currently on a few of the issues raised in this thread:
* Ghost interdiction: interdiction ending with no other vessels present - this sounds very much like a bug, so please ticket. In general, if an interdiction completes (either because of submission or the interdictor winning) then both ships should be pushed into the same space. I can't really think of any circumstance where this should not be the case.
* Submission escape: we are looking into two potential solutions to the ability for ships to submit then charge their frame shift five seconds later.
First though, a rationale as to why we have submission: we want authority ships to be able to drop players out of super cruise, in order that they can scan them. If authority ships can't do this, then smuggling loses some of its excitement. On the other hand, we don't want authority interdictions to damage the ships involved if the Commander is willing to submit to scanning. We also don't want to leave players with a significant cooldown afterwards.
Solution one is to allow the interdictor device to have some sort of FSD delaying attack in normal space, that is temporarily disabled when the device is used for a successful interdiction. So submitting Commanders would be at risk of this attack, whilst Commanders that fought the interdiction would not (but instead would have to contend with their frame shift cool down).
An added benefit would be that the interdictor could be used outside of interdiction.
Solution two would be to remove submission and instead update the AI to be able to demand Commanders to drop of their own accord so that the authority ships could drop out onto them and scan.
Both solutions are non-trivial, both have pros and cons. No ETA, but we are working towards fixing this exploit.
There's also one other interesting point to note. If you submit to interdiction simply to escape back to super cruise there is nothing preventing your assailant from repeatedly dragging you back down. If you fight and successfully evade interdiction, your aggressor is dropped into normal space with a forty second frame shift cool down...
* Chaff is too powerful: Chaff launcher capacity is being reduced (and the munitions is being made more expensive). Like a few other modules that use resources, our initial numbers managed to get out of line with other module balancing passes.
* Murder is not serious enough: This is an interesting one that has a couple of different strands to unpick. Firstly, we are looking to add in a future update a change that will cause any bounty claimed to become a special, non-expiring fine for the perpetrator. The idea is that when you commit a crime you are expected to pay at some point. Currently some game play flow options remove the bounty completing when you are killed, which is not what we want.
It's also worth noting that a bounty is not simply a fine to pay (otherwise it would be called a fine). It is also a green light for you to be attacked. In fact, this is undoubtedly the more serious part of the punishment. I think we still have some way to go to tweak background events to pick up on Commander bounties more (as in, when you fly around with a bounty the game takes it into account when deciding what to generate in the game world near you).
We already have a system that keeps bounties alive when you are killed but they are not claimed (dormant bounties). I just think it would be too punishing to have bounties that kept on being active after respawning. Sure this would not be an issue for the tiny minority of super wealthy Commanders, but our data suggests that losing a ship is a non-trivial event for the majority of pilots - and having a more or less permanent target on your back would likely just stop people committing crimes. That's my current take, anyway.
We are considering bounty adjustments based on some difference metric between Commanders (for example, Elite Commanders getting slapped with a bigger bounty when attacking lower rated pilots, or perhaps based on ship strength).
* Combat Logging: unfortunately there isn't a panacea we can apply to make it go away. We're investigating various options to mitigate the issue. I can't really add anything more at this point in time, other than to say that we're aware of the issue and we're looking at what we can do to both "escapee" and "victor" to improve the situation.
* Moar player interaction for players that aren't fans of PVP: We want to see more stuff that has players working together in some meaningful fashion, with meaningful game world responses, as much as the next Commander. Various options are in the "big list of cool stuff". We have to take things one step at a time though, making sure what we have works to the best of its ability and has the foundations to support additional game play.
So, I hope this helps clarify things a little for you folk! I'll finish with the note that just because we don't get into every thread on the forums doesn't mean we aren't aware or dismissive of issues raised. Forum interaction is actually relatively costly for us, so we have to pick our moments for maximum effect
Hello Commander Robert Maynard!
First, as a reminder to everyone - there's no iron guarantee or ETA on any of the stuff we discuss here, unless we absolutely state as much. Now, caveat duly issued:
As it happens, we've recently been discussing a "Reboot and Jury Rig" option that would allow you to bring dead systems back online with some minimal health (say a couple of percent) by "eating" an equivalent (or probably double amount) from other systems. This would allow you to come back from being crippled, but not save you from A) destruction at the hands of someone who really wanted you dead and B) further issues and malfunctions (but we think this could be a pretty cool aspect, actually).
Hello Commander Snake Man!
A couple of points: running without shields is incredibly dangerous. If you get caught out and drawn into combat, you've kind of been asking for it. The Type 9 is a big enough ship that, outfitted with the correct modules, can cause some amount of trouble to aggressors whilst waiting for the long frame shift cool down to expire.
Hello Commander elaverick!
Hahahahahahaha! Umm, not intentional...
Hello Commander NeilF!
Pirates, in general, can be persuaded to stop attacking you if you drop cargo (even if you have traded shots with them). Of course, the more powerful the pirate ship, the more cargo they need to sate their greed.
The premise of legacy fines is not to keep a bounty active, but to turn it into a everlasting fine if someone kills you to collect it (in part to stop exploits between players to make money killing each other in starter ships).
Hello Commanders!
A couple more points:
Having your ship be controlled by some form of AI when you log is not straightforward (otherwise we would have done this already!
There's an interesting sentiment that keeps cropping up: if you make it harder to escape from aggressors, then I'll be forced back into solo. I'd like to ask, is this a player-only issue, or would it include NPCs. Because the idea we've always had for trading is that being attacked is the core game play risk.
In fact, I'd posit that one of the reasons (not the only one, obviously) trading is so much more profitable is because there's little risk of losing your ship or taking much damage, or losing cargo (feel free to disabuse me of this notion if you have evidence to the contrary!)
Now I certainly don't want to see traders getting slaughtered like lambs in an eternal spring, but I want to make it clear that being attacked/placed in significant danger has always been part of our plans for the trader role.
Hello Commanders!
I'd just like to add this morsel to the debate, again to explain where we're coming from.
I'm not overly interested in the whole "who wins the encounter" discussion, especially when the encounters can be very lopsided. I'm interested in how game play is served for both parties:
So a combat-heavy ship interdicts a trader. What's interesting to me here is: how are the players' game play needs being served? My first thought is: is the frequency and mechanics of the interdiction process working? If it is, then great, I know that the trader is facing a threat that I believe traders need to create interesting and exciting journeys.
I know that if I asked a bunch of traders about their thoughts on this particular interdiction they would all likely cry out in despair - the odds are stacked against them. But I have faith that the potential of this encounter makes their overall game play experience better (of course, this assumes that the frequency and game play is correct, something which might need a number of tweaks).
I look at the combat ship. Regardless of what their intent is, at this point in the game play they have a material advantage. But I want to make sure that the length and options of the encounter mean that both parties have at least *some* tricks to employ (hence I want to make sure that the trader could have fitted modules that make life more difficult if used well, and that the combat ship has the means to potentially prevent instant escape and actually attack). If you fly a stripped down trader with no shields or means to defend yourself, I contend that you are taking a calculated risk and can't complain too much when you get interdicted.
All in all, the end result of this encounter is mostly likely that the trader suffers some amount of material loss (the extreme being that they are destroyed) and that the combat ship more than likely has a bounty. Depending on player skill and materials involved the result can swing one way or another, but this is most likely outcome.
At this point, the trader needs to recoup their losses (being traders, they'll likely trade to do this). I believe we currently have some issues linked to the severity of their potential loss, but I suspect we may be able to find ways of softening the extreme cases a little better (tweaks to the credit line, for example is something we're looking at, or some changes to overall ship costs). Importantly, to me it makes no sense for the trader to perceive that they somehow "lost" this encounter - because the deck was stacked against them from the start.
The only sensible way for traders to assess how well they did is to consider how much they lost. And in a nutshell, this is where we have to make sure that traders can *if they wish* alter their ships to mitigate the loss caused by loss. Tough shields, armour, point defence, weapons - these all make a difference. For sure it's no guarantee that the trader can defeat the combat ship, but - if we get the numbers to the right place - it may well mean the difference between some hull/module damage and complete ship loss, depending on the equipment and *how well* it's used.
And I have to say that this is a core concept for the trader's basic journey. It really has nothing to do with them "beating" or "losing" to ships that are designed specifically for combat. It's about the dangers and efficiencies of haulage.
For the combat ship Commander, who presumably wants to fight - they now have a bounty which allows anyone to attack them in the area. Both player and AI ships can take advantage of this, and, again, almost certainly through some ongoing balancing, they should get more fights, which is kind of what they want, I would hope. The idea we want to create here is that living by the sword means risk of dying by the sword, potentially quite often.
Now, for the combat ship pilot who targets weaker ships then pays off the bounty instantly, I don't believe the answer is in making trader ships invincible, or impossible to find or catch. I'd suggest we will get better results in increasing the likelihood of dangerous combat encounters for them, such as tweaking the frequency of more powerful authority ships, especially around stars and starports, increasing the bounty they accrue based on the imbalance between ships, making bounties they accrue sit around as debt once they've been claimed - basically making their infamy count against them wherever we can do so and in so doing increase the chance for combat.
Again, this isn't to make them "lose", it's to provide an entertaining experience for them to work through. The only time player versus player becomes a clear cut case of win/lose is when too evenly fitted ships decide to slap each other about (which they can do, I have no issues with that).
I'd say that possibly we should look into AI to make sure that the more experienced Commanders can feel challenged, without destroying newer players. I think that there is perhaps room to look at rewards in addition to credits, to minimise the perception/reality that trading is the path of least resistance to progression. I think we can look at improving AI goals and activities in super cruise (for example having AI more interested in players based on how the player acts, maybe AI that can use wakes). We will also have lots of interesting situations to monitor when player wings and other features come on-line.
This game is certainly an ongoing endeavour and we're committed! All I'm saying here is that, due to the nature of the game, Commanders are going to inevitably find themselves in situations that aren't necessarily balanced or fair.
What I want to be able to do is make sure that Commanders who employ skill and knowledge (which can include knowing how to outfit your ship) maximize their success in those encounters.
Of course, to caveat, no guarantee or ETA on stuffs that are discussed here, it's simply me trying to explain our current line of thinking (and therefore is in no way immune to change!) Hopefully though, there's some food for thought (and of course, just because you disagree does not instantly make you "wrong" or us "right").
I hope this proves at least an interesting read
Last edited:
1. people exploit , cheat and do many other things that seem to make earning an honest living pointless...it's not though for obvious reasons. Also it is because the game is peer2peer like how torrents works and there is no "server" really.
2. Yes group would overcome this but alt f4 isn't that big of a deal anymore than some pvper getting his "behind" handed to him by his third "victim" and then trying to stop that victim from cashing in on his bounty via nefarious methods and quick respawns... claims of honor notwithstanding.
3. agreed but this isn't really real life and in real life when you kill someone you go to jail for a long long time (mostly lolz )
The tools are there to resolve this, the only problem is that the hardcore pvpers have decided open play is meant to be played their way or no way at all. Open play shouldn't cater to one group over another period.
Much ado about nothing....
Last edited:
i can see this is quite futile? why did they even bother making an open mode? why do i even bother..... what logical reasoning can make someone support such an exploit, then offer groups has a solution.... what is going on?
Every man and his dog will be alt f4-ing in open, and FD will be a laughing stock with review sites if this keeps up.
and what groups are those? the one who play fairly, and the one who don't want to die in open so alt f4?
Last edited:
I will try in simpler terms.
Pver cries I got killed by another player....pvpers cries go play group or solo instead of being a carebear or whiner etc etc...pvper now cries he cheated because alt f4 cry cry then it devolves into questions of sportsmanship, honor and even your upbringing lol
So I say instead of wasting time and money on a small issue like this which will be a big big pita to fix because p2p netcode stay on adding new content and the like and those doing the crying can follow their own advice and make a pvp hardcore group with certain rules to make them happy.
Alas
Last edited:
The PvP crowd could also make an PvP group similar to Mobius. If you Alt-F4, you get banned from the group. Then you can happily PvP without any issues all the time. I don't see any problem here.
I've read those, thank you.
You've missed the point. If combat logging is abuse of the open system, ganking new players with a Python is too. You've read the threads about mindless idiots sniping people leaving the dock, or as I mentioned, heading back to starter systems and blowing up newbies for no good reason. It seems that the open mode needs a lot more thought going in to its structuring. Gankers don't do what they do for competition; they do it for the lulz, which I interpret as trolling. Telling new players to suck it up because the game is subtitled "Dangerous" is disingenuous: Open is broken in that regard - the game demands many many hours of time to progress, and it's quite possible to lose everything and have to start from scratch, especially towards the beginning. I don't have to worry about this - I have enough of a cushion to rebuy my Viper many times over, and consequently won't run from a fight (I play open exclusively). However, someone who's grinding the starter ships doesn't have much room for maneuver and doesn't have anything approaching the firepower to defend themselves.
There are many many different ways to play the game. At the moment, the penalties for anti-social behaviour are far too minimal. Practically non-existent, in fact. Like I said, the way the game is structured now, combat logging is a natural response when hopelessly outgunned, and frankly if someone is in an Adder with no bounty on their head, cargo in their hold or armaments worth mentioning and you show up in your Python and decide to kill them simply because you're bored, they're going to spoil your day - the current mechanic isn't particularly logical.
If you have a wanted tag on YOUR head , be happy someone wants you.
I just agree with the bounty hunter , someone been shot up and quitting before the death blow , is undermining the efforts of the noble bounty hunters they have lives and families to feed what of their RIGHTS!! If your been shot up & have a wanted tag , then quitting shouldn't work , Keep if for those who are just going about the day , and then get attacked, The attacker gets the WANTED tag , the victim keeps their cargo and ship intact.... all good . With this, unwanted game play would be rare, unless your just bad mean & stupid
I just agree with the bounty hunter , someone been shot up and quitting before the death blow , is undermining the efforts of the noble bounty hunters they have lives and families to feed what of their RIGHTS!! If your been shot up & have a wanted tag , then quitting shouldn't work , Keep if for those who are just going about the day , and then get attacked, The attacker gets the WANTED tag , the victim keeps their cargo and ship intact.... all good . With this, unwanted game play would be rare, unless your just bad mean & stupid
The big problem here is wanting things to be "fair".
Ain't gonna happen. Not in Elite. Not in any online game. EVER. The entire concept of "fair" just does not apply to gaming online, and no type of connection, or net code, or punitive actions against dropouts or purposeful DCs can ever make it fair.
Is this not obvious to you all?
You can't stop people disconnecting, and punishing players who have a genuine disconnect is horsehockey.
If your prey does not want to die at your hands, then they should not - plain and simple. Disconnecting from a fight is pathetic - yes it is - but to action against DCers is beyond the pale.
This is one of the reasons FD have got to wake up, smell the goddamned coffee, and create a stand alone combat module, where dying does not lose your ship. An online pure PvP module would support standardised ship loadouts, and only the same ships would face each other to the death. Ideally, the module would allow piggybacking on any player's ship, and keep statistics of combat performance, ranking all players who take part.
So many people who own this game are ONLY in it for the Pewpews - and currently there is zero incentive to take on other human players in a ship matching your own, as a loss can be significant. Hell, My Viper costs $120K to replace, and my Cobra 250K.
PLZ OH GREAT BRABEN - GIVE US A PLACE WE CAN FIGHT WITHOUT LOSING ACTUAL WORK.
Ain't gonna happen. Not in Elite. Not in any online game. EVER. The entire concept of "fair" just does not apply to gaming online, and no type of connection, or net code, or punitive actions against dropouts or purposeful DCs can ever make it fair.
Is this not obvious to you all?
You can't stop people disconnecting, and punishing players who have a genuine disconnect is horsehockey.
If your prey does not want to die at your hands, then they should not - plain and simple. Disconnecting from a fight is pathetic - yes it is - but to action against DCers is beyond the pale.
This is one of the reasons FD have got to wake up, smell the goddamned coffee, and create a stand alone combat module, where dying does not lose your ship. An online pure PvP module would support standardised ship loadouts, and only the same ships would face each other to the death. Ideally, the module would allow piggybacking on any player's ship, and keep statistics of combat performance, ranking all players who take part.
So many people who own this game are ONLY in it for the Pewpews - and currently there is zero incentive to take on other human players in a ship matching your own, as a loss can be significant. Hell, My Viper costs $120K to replace, and my Cobra 250K.
PLZ OH GREAT BRABEN - GIVE US A PLACE WE CAN FIGHT WITHOUT LOSING ACTUAL WORK.
Exactly.
The Final Solution; Logoffskis
The only viable solution for logoffskis is a log-out timer. The mechanism works like this;
If a commander logs off, the ship remains in-game for 60s, minimum and the player is notified of the cool-down.
If you're in space, you're a sitting duck for the duration of that cool-down.
If you're docked, you're safe. Sensible, no?
Even the ED forums have a 60 second cool-down.
The only viable solution for logoffskis is a log-out timer. The mechanism works like this;
If a commander logs off, the ship remains in-game for 60s, minimum and the player is notified of the cool-down.
If you're in space, you're a sitting duck for the duration of that cool-down.
If you're docked, you're safe. Sensible, no?
Even the ED forums have a 60 second cool-down.
If you get hit, the timer should probably reset, too. Most similar online games use the solution you propose because it's easily enforcable with a typical client server MMO setup. The reason you don't see it in Elite yet is because the peer to peer model makes things more complex.
Last edited:
Maybe he gets his enjoyment from laughing when he f4s. He's paid for the game to. He has just as much right to play this way as you. Suck it up.
- Status