Simple Fix to Combat Logging

[Mohrgan]

There is no cure for CL'ing in Elite. There is just report and complain. I can accept that. Even the complaining part. I just think all of those tough pirate types should have thicker skins.

Serenity
Courage
Wisdom

Words to live by.

 

[GluttonyFang]

And so is griefing. FD saying it's not against the game rules doesn't make it a mature behaviour. FD saying c-logging is an exploit will also not change the way people may feel about using it in situations of unsolicited PVP. Each person will have a different definition of what is a right and wrong thing to do in an online game. EULA / TOS may give a guideline to follow, but that doesn't mean people will always follow them. Developers' perspective may influence the way such issues are being handled in the future, but for as long as there is no incentive to not use c-logging, people will use it. Some because they don't want unsolicited PVP, some because they want PVP, but not one they loose. I think there is a significant difference between the two, just like there is a difference between challenging PVP with players interested in that and in opening fire indiscriminately at every player encountered or at every player in a ship that can't defend itself.

Yea except that "griefing" as FD understands it is very different than what some people perceive to be griefing. Ganking isn't griefing, noob killing isn't griefing, kill stealing isn't griefing, getting attacked by a more powerful ship isn't griefing. I'm not making this up as you can message a developer and ask them.

Perceived griefing has no impact on what FD believes is or is not griefing, and griefing complaints often fall into the category of perceived griefing. Whereas combat logging, regardless of its context (save real life emergencies/natural disasters) is considered an exploit. Griefing can be considered using game mechanics in an unintended way, if anything, the perceived griefing aren't griefing at all and combat logging is one of the actual method of griefing.

And that was a one-off. Presumably. Maybe FD staff will support Mobius in similar cases in the future, maybe it will not. It's nice of them to step in, but this may not always be possible. And it's not exactly fair to people running other big groups. In that last case FD made an exception to tackle the problem at hand, but they didn't change anything with the private groups and did nothing to prevent such incidents to happen in the future. And such accidents are likely happen again. And what if Mobius decides to stop hosting the groups?
Some more permanent solution is needed, one that would either allow to combine PVP and PVE gameplay, separating the two in one public group / mode, in one galaxy through PVP and non-PVP zones, or separate gaming preferences by putting PVPers and PVErs in two separate public groups / modes.
Both sides of this barricade do have some valid points. Personally I see their suggestions for what they are: suggestions expressing the need for certain solutions and showing Frontier that players do have an opinion and also enjoy different game styles. I don't think it's strong-arming, even if people are annoyed when posting their suggestions. There is no obligation for Frontier to follow these suggestions. In the end I hope they will make their decisions considering the future of ED and to make it a thriving online community.

Please read this: https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php?t=235327

Crime and punishment system does need some serious revamp, but at the same time is has nothing to do with c-logging. Even if crime and punishment system is absolutely perfect, people will still use combat logging because of how much it costs them to recover from their loss. Nobody really flies heavy trading ships for the fun of it (by nobody I mean most people) but as a way to build up credits for other activities. Having to do the same, fairly uneventful and time consuming activity over and over again is a tempting incentive for combat logging. It may be childish, it may be cheating, but it's very tempting to just do that instead of repeating again a monotonous route from A to B. Especially that you may be forced to do that multiple times.

Crime and punishment revamp will reduce combat logging if done right. Combat logging cannot be stopped entirely, but its usage needs to be reduced severely and have proper consequence along with the improvement of crime and punishment. Humans are inclined to do many things outside of social contracts, punishment and reward are necessary to keep them in line.

I doubt Frontier would introduce such a system. All they would have to do is to keep the c-logger ship ingame for a bit longer (and this can be done in P2P type of multiplayer as well). They haven't done that, they have not provided any other solutions to tackle combat logging which would mean c-logger ship's destruction or loss of cargo. More so, the ship comes back online in pristine condition. This says they either can't find an easy solution for whatever reason, or just don't see this issue as too much of a problem. Also, introducing such a system would make Open a mode to be abandoned. If this system was to not able to tell combat logging apart from client crash, that would probably mean massive exodus of players.

As long as I get my cargo one way or another. Right now it's support contacting and video uploading. Which some people may say "my immersion is ruined!"

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

There is no cure for CL'ing in Elite. There is just report and complain. I can accept that. Even the complaining part. I just think all of those tough pirate types should have thicker skins.

Serenity
Courage
Wisdom

Words to live by.

I think the indifferent attitude should be proliferated and see what kind of a world we get where no one strives to improve and question... Also that stereotyping should also be proliferated and see where... oh wait... racism... genocide... oh dear, let's not.

*Disclaimer*

Read Adorno and Horkheimer (Cultural Industry) before contesting this point, thank you very much. Actually, even Freud (Civilization and its Discontent, in particular) and Nietzsche (Pretty much anything he writes is fine).

Edit:

I would like to propose for the following changes to professions:

BH:

-Target ships disappear 75% of the time at 25% hull or 25% PP

Trading:

-Cargo hold loses all its content upon landing at the target station 75% of the time

Exploration:

-75% of the time scan data is not registered

Mining:

-75% fragment synthesis fail to create metal/mineral

etc

Then tell anyone that complains to have tougher skin, and live by serenity, courage and wisdom to deal with it.

 

[Kristov]

Gluttony, you....I can't give you more rep today...don't want to but damned if you ain't earned it.

 

[GluttonyFang]

Gluttony, you....I can't give you more rep today...don't want to but damned if you ain't earned it.

<3

8 Chars

 

[Robert Maynard]

That I find satisfied easily by the proposal OP gave.

The OP does not mention how disconnections as a result of combat logging are discerned from any other disconnection, indeed it states:

How about simply adding an explosion animation to every ship that logs off outside of a station?

- "logs off" implies using the 15-second timer - which, by Sandro's definition is not even Combat Logging.

Unlikely, for that a PvP "server" attracts more Pkers than Open, and some appreciate Open for being a place where players that don't clearly class themselves either PvP or PvE. Little to no trader is going to specifically aim to be attacked, they want to retain the element of possibility of cooperation/bystander.

Possibly - although I would suspect that at least some PKers would still select Open - for the easy targets, i.e. those who are on Open with no interest in PvP as it is the only unlimited population game mode.

It is equivalent in a legitimacy sense and advertised profession of play.

Equivalent to any role where the player has chosen to limit their targets by choosing to target players only.

 

[Agony_Aunt]

I hate to say this, Gluttony knows how much I hate to say it too, but..he's right you know.

I think you just broke the internet.

 

[Kristov]

I think you just broke the internet.

That's OK, I'm in IT, it's easy enough to fix, just need some duct tape, bailing wire and a linux manual....if you don't hear from me within a week, tell my kids I loved them.

 

[GluttonyFang]

The OP does not mention how disconnections as a result of combat logging are discerned from any other disconnection, indeed it states:



- "logs off" implies using the 15-second timer - which, by Sandro's definition is not even Combat Logging.

Right, what we need to focus on is to create incentive to not combat log by making proper adjustment to crime and punishment. Then we can start using blanket solutions that ignore false positives not in a way where it is so punishing that it is senseless. (Brainstorming atm)

Possibly - although I would suspect that at least some PKers would still select Open - for the easy targets, i.e. those who are on Open with no interest in PvP as it is the only unlimited population game mode.

Those that want to boil up easy targets are going to try in any mode, hence why crime and punishment revamp is suppose to tone it down.

Equivalent to any role where the player has chosen to limit their targets by choosing to target players only.

Targeting players is an aspect of the profession, and it is encouraged by the dichotomy of player cargo vs NPC cargo (which the gap did indeed shorten with the change to NPC cargo, but not substantially, unfortunately). When an aspect of a profession that the profession encourages due to income difference is utterly broken, it is an issue that needs to be addressed in either fixing said aspect or provide income incentive that make the current prominent facet less attractive. Otherwise it's akin to breaking the most profitable trade route, make most neutron stars unable to be scanned, make pristine reserve and metallic planets extinct, or high bounty value targets invincible.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Right, what we need to focus on is to create incentive to not combat log by making proper adjustment to crime and punishment. Then we can start using blanket solutions that ignore false positives not in a way where it is so punishing that it is senseless. (Brainstorming atm)

Referring to enhanced consequences for the player destroying a targeted player as an "incentive not to combat log" is an interesting take on it.

I doubt that Frontier will use a blanket for anything related to potentially punishing players - especially for dropped connections. If they were inclined to, I expect that they would already have done so.

Those that want to boil up easy targets are going to try in any mode, hence why crime and punishment revamp is suppose to tone it down.

Sadly for the targeted players, any enhanced crime and punishment will almost certainly only engage after the attack starts - which means that it will probably arrive far too late to significantly affect the outcome.

Targeting players is an aspect of the profession, and it is encouraged by the dichotomy of player cargo vs NPC cargo (which the gap did indeed shorten with the change to NPC cargo, but not substantially, unfortunately). When an aspect of a profession that the profession encourages due to income difference is utterly broken, it is an issue that needs to be addressed in either fixing said aspect or provide income incentive that make the current prominent facet less attractive. Otherwise it's akin to breaking the most profitable trade route, make most neutron stars unable to be scanned, make pristine reserve and metallic planets extinct, or high bounty value targets invincible.

Profit associated with targeting players is entirely variable with respect to the cargo they choose to carry, whether they will drop any at all (or take it with them when they explode) and any damage that the pirate sustains. Player ships don't drop cargo on destruction for a reason....

 

[GluttonyFang]

Referring to enhanced consequences for the player destroying a targeted player as an "incentive not to combat log" is an interesting take on it.

I doubt that Frontier will use a blanket for anything related to potentially punishing players - especially for dropped connections. If they were inclined to, I expect that they would already have done so.

I believe it is not changed currently due to the state of the crime and punishment, once that is properly implemented, there will be solid ground to implement punishment for combat logging.

Sadly for the targeted players, any enhanced crime and punishment will almost certainly only engage after the attack starts - which means that it will probably arrive far too late to significantly affect the outcome.

Without making reference to my proposal, I believe crime and punishment revamp should sensibly include investigation the moment interdiction begins. Meaning that the moment a clean ship gets pulled out of SC in high security system, there will be police vessel immediately present even without firing by either party.

Profit associated with targeting players is entirely variable with respect to the cargo they choose to carry, whether they will drop any at all (or take it with them when they explode) and any damage that the pirate sustains. Player ships don't drop cargo on destruction for a reason....

This variable is greatly solidified with cargo scanner/hatch breaker/hatch module damage.

Though it is true that FD has been putting more valuable cargo on Npcs, which is a good start.

 

[DHMeyer]

Yea except that "griefing" as FD understands it is very different than what some people perceive to be griefing. Ganking isn't griefing, noob killing isn't griefing, kill stealing isn't griefing, getting attacked by a more powerful ship isn't griefing. I'm not making this up as you can message a developer and ask them.

Perceived griefing has no impact on what FD believes is or is not griefing, and griefing complaints often fall into the category of perceived griefing. Whereas combat logging, regardless of its context (save real life emergencies/natural disasters) is considered an exploit. Griefing can be considered using game mechanics in an unintended way, if anything, the perceived griefing aren't griefing at all and combat logging is one of the actual method of griefing.

I think combat logging often falls into a category of perceived combat logging. This could be anything: the other player could have lost connection, or it could be an instancing bug, it could be just a visual glitch and in reality that person is still there... But seriously: I can't say I would approve of combat logging in any circumstances, however can see a difference between a player who does it in a trade ship and a player who does it in a combat ship after starting a fight.
Anyhow, as for griefing, I'll give you my definition, this will make things easier: griefing is the practice of making other player's life as miserable, as you possibly can make it, by pestering them and interfering with their gameplay for no reason other than "it's not forbidden by the EULA". To include (but not limited to) things like: ramming other player's ships into the space stations, killing non-combat worthy vessels, attacking clearly weaker opponents. Usually done for no ingame reason, no ingame gain.
As for the devs' definition, quite frankly, I don't give a damn. I'm sure they have enough work as it is, I'm not going to pester them with questions. It's their business to decide what is and what isn't following the game rules, and sure enough, they will create a definition that follows the game mechanics they created. My business is to enjoy the game, which I am, despite its flaws. And people will do whatever they want, unless, as you rightly noticed, they are either coerced or convinced to do as they're told.

Please read this: https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php?t=235327.

I read that yesterday (yes, all of it) and + Rep'd you for that. These are good ideas, I liked them a lot. I don't really have any objections and it would be nice to see that implemented. I think that it might be a good thing to change current Open to allow for PVP and PVE within one mode and separate them by other means. However, I'm not entirely sure if such a solution would be satisfactory to PVPer and PVErs. For me it looks good and neat, for some PVPers nothing will be good enough unless whole galaxy contains only anarchy systems, for some PVErs any chance of PVP will be shunned. For sure PVP and PVE gamers should be separated in one or another way. But yeah, good ideas.

Crime and punishment revamp will reduce combat logging if done right. Combat logging cannot be stopped entirely, but its usage needs to be reduced severely and have proper consequence along with the improvement of crime and punishment. Humans are inclined to do many things outside of social contracts, punishment and reward are necessary to keep them in line.

Well, precisely. The problem is that punishment for being killed in a game you're supposed to play for fun is taking away pretty long hours you spent building up. It's an equivalent of real life burglary, when somebody breaks into your house and steals everything that has any value. Sure, you still have your bank accounts, savings etc, but you face empty walls of your house. Now, if the burglar was to be caught and you could retrieve majority of your possessions, that would probably make moving on easier. But that's the option Elite doesn't give you. Unless the players loose significantly less when killed, next to nothing, they will use combat logging.

Yes, additional content might help to minimise the issue. For example, if players have the possibility to hire their own personal security force (aka NPC wingmen), more will refrain from combat logging (providing the NPC wingmen do their job in a decent manner and do not cost you an arm and leg). Good crime and punishment system might help too. But the bottom line is: for as long as loosing a ship means hours of grinding, people will use combat logging.

As long as I get my cargo one way or another. Right now it's support contacting and video uploading. Which some people may say "my immersion is ruined!".

If you don't get it from other player's cargo hold, that might work. Again, if there is too much risk, people tend to try to mitigate it. Which in ED means c-logging, switching to private group or solo. So in short, unless the problem of harsh punishment for being destroyed ingame is addressed, you won't see many humans being interested in frequenting a mode where they can be blown up by other players.

 

[Robert Maynard]

I believe it is not changed currently due to the state of the crime and punishment, once that is properly implemented, there will be solid ground to implement punishment for combat logging.

The current state of crime and punishment has nothing to do with dropped connections (and, of course, something to do with Combat Logging).

Without making reference to my proposal, I believe crime and punishment revamp should sensibly include investigation the moment interdiction begins. Meaning that the moment a clean ship gets pulled out of SC in high security system, there will be police vessel immediately present even without firing by either party.

Very gamey - instantly appearing Police....

This variable is greatly solidified with cargo scanner/hatch breaker/hatch module damage.

Though it is true that FD has been putting more valuable cargo on Npcs, which is a good start.

These modules / equipment work on NPCs too, of course.

 

[GluttonyFang]

I think combat logging often falls into a category of perceived combat logging. This could be anything: the other player could have lost connection, or it could be an instancing bug, it could be just a visual glitch and in reality th
at person is still there... But seriously: I can't say I would approve of combat logging in any circumstances, however can see a difference between a player who does it in a trade ship and a player who does it in a combat ship after starting a fight.

Instancing bug usually take place before the entry into the normal space instance (where the two parties can't see each other). From my experience, it's very easy to distinguish a combat log and an instancing bug.

Anyhow, as for griefing, I'll give you my definition, this will make things easier: griefing is the practice of making other player's life as miserable, as you possibly can make it, by pestering them and interfering with their gameplay for no reason other than "it's not forbidden by the EULA". To include (but not limited to) things like: ramming other player's ships into the space stations, killing non-combat worthy vessels, attacking clearly weaker opponents. Usually done for no ingame reason, no ingame gain.
As for the devs' definition, quite frankly, I don't give a damn. I'm sure they have enough work as it is, I'm not going to pester them with questions. It's their business to decide what is and what isn't following the game rules, and sure enough, they will create a definition that follows the game mechanics they created. My business is to enjoy the game, which I am, despite its flaws. And people will do whatever they want, unless, as you rightly noticed, they are either coerced or convinced to do as they're told.

With no disrespect, your definition of griefing does not matter. Using a personal definition of griefing to justify combat logging (not saying you do) is not valid.

I read that yesterday (yes, all of it) and + Rep'd you for that. These are good ideas, I liked them a lot. I don't really have any objections and it would be nice to see that implemented. I think that it might be a good thing to change current Open to allow for PVP and PVE within one mode and separate them by other means. However, I'm not entirely sure if such a solution would be satisfactory to PVPer and PVErs. For me it looks good and neat, for some PVPers nothing will be good enough unless whole galaxy contains only anarchy systems, for some PVErs any chance of PVP will be shunned. For sure PVP and PVE gamers should be separated in one or another way. But yeah, good ideas.

Thank you.

Well, precisely. The problem is that punishment for being killed in a game you're supposed to play for fun is taking away pretty long hours you spent building up. It's an equivalent of real life burglary, when somebody breaks into your house and steals everything that has any value. Sure, you still have your bank accounts, savings etc, but you face empty walls of your house. Now, if the burglar was to be caught and you could retrieve majority of your possessions, that would probably make moving on easier. But that's the option Elite doesn't give you. Unless the players loose significantly less when killed, next to nothing, they will use combat logging.

Yes, additional content might help to minimise the issue. For example, if players have the possibility to hire their own personal security force (aka NPC wingmen), more will refrain from combat logging (providing the NPC wingmen do their job in a decent manner and do not cost you an arm and leg). Good crime and punishment system might help too. But the bottom line is: for as long as loosing a ship means hours of grinding, people will use combat logging.

Indeed, but once crime and punishment create reasonable security for people, they can no longer use the excuse of unreasonable loss of progress for that they are placing themselves in danger by being in precarious space.

If you don't get it from other player's cargo hold, that might work. Again, if there is too much risk, people tend to try to mitigate it. Which in ED means c-logging, switching to private group or solo. So in short, unless the problem of harsh punishment for being destroyed ingame is addressed, you won't see many humans being interested in frequenting a mode where they can be blown up by other players.

Hence why crime and punishment needs to be improved and revamped, yes.

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

The current state of crime and punishment has nothing to do with dropped connections (and, of course, something to do with Combat Logging).

But dropped connection is not a frequent occurrence, especially in combat situation. If there is a regular disconnection for a user regardless of inside/outside of combat situation, I don't see why that cannot be detected.

Very gamey - instantly appearing Police....

We are in a game, not to mention we have wing beacon that can be precisely used for this purpose. Using the technology for police tracking is not out of the ordinary and if anything respects game lore.

These modules / equipment work on NPCs too, of course.

Correct, but the content is no match for players'. (Not 100% of the time, of course, but any experienced pirate can tell you that it's worth more going after players than NPC [FD is trying to improve NPC cargo value, I am aware])

 

[Robert Maynard]

But dropped connection is not a frequent occurrence, especially in combat situation. If there is a regular disconnection for a user regardless of inside/outside of combat situation, I don't see why that cannot be detected.

That's assertion rather speculative.... Frontier will have statistics that could prove / disprove this, of course. Whatever criteria set Frontier put in place for determination of Combat Logging (as opposed to a dropped connection) will, presumably, be carefully put together so as not to unfairly punish players with connections that are not perfect.

We are in a game, not to mention we have wing beacon that can be precisely used for this purpose. Using the technology for police tracking is not out of the ordinary and if anything respects game lore.

Of course we are "in" a game - that's not to say that gamey mechanics are particularly welcome. A player needs to be within a distance of "10% of speed" of the Wing member to be able to drop in on their wake. Given the size of some systems, Police ships are unlikely to be that close. As the same time, I certainly acknowledge that the FSD-Interdictor functioning over massive distances is equally gamey - but it introduces a gameplay element to Super-Cruise travel....

Correct, but the content is no match for players'. (Not 100% of the time, of course, but any experienced pirate can tell you that it's worth more going after players than NPC [FD is trying to improve NPC cargo value, I am aware])

Probably.

 

[GluttonyFang]

That's assertion rather speculative.... Frontier will have statistics that could prove / disprove this, of course. Whatever criteria set Frontier put in place for determination of Combat Logging (as opposed to a dropped connection) will, presumably, be carefully put together so as not to unfairly punish players with connections that are not perfect.

Precisely, create profiles for people and keep track of their connection.

Of course we are "in" a game - that's not to say that gamey mechanics are particularly welcome. A player needs to be within a distance of "10% of speed" of the Wing member to be able to drop in on their wake. Given the size of some systems, Police ships are unlikely to be that close. As the same time, I certainly acknowledge that the FSD-Interdictor functioning over massive distances is equally gamey - but it introduces a gameplay element to Super-Cruise travel....

The security vessels should patrol, so there should always be available vessels.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Precisely, create profiles for people and keep track of their connection.

I would be surprised if that was not already the case.

The security vessels should patrol, so there should always be available vessels.

That would impact on the number of NPCs in a Super-Cruise instance - which could, in turn, affect the numbers of other ships in the instance.

 

[GluttonyFang]

I would be surprised if that was not already the case.

It is, we just need more solid ground like an improved crime and punishment system to give way for more severe punishment.

That would impact on the number of NPCs in a Super-Cruise instance - which could, in turn, affect the numbers of other ships in the instance.

They don't necessarily have to be visible, they can be in another instance, which works with wings between players.

 

[Defector]

Referring to enhanced consequences for the player destroying a targeted player as an "incentive not to combat log" is an interesting take on it.

I doubt that Frontier will use a blanket for anything related to potentially punishing players - especially for dropped connections. If they were inclined to, I expect that they would already have done so.



Sadly for the targeted players, any enhanced crime and punishment will almost certainly only engage after the attack starts - which means that it will probably arrive far too late to significantly affect the outcome.



Profit associated with targeting players is entirely variable with respect to the cargo they choose to carry, whether they will drop any at all (or take it with them when they explode) and any damage that the pirate sustains. Player ships don't drop cargo on destruction for a reason....

In the real world, It's the punishment after the fact that keeps us from committing a crime in the first place. If the punishment is severe enough, the reason for murder would have to be much more important. We're not resistant to knives or bullets. We're not fitted with shock collars that keep us in line. It's laws and punishment that keep society in check.

 

[Robert Maynard]

In the real world, It's the punishment after the fact that keeps us from committing a crime in the first place. If the punishment is severe enough, the reason for murder would have to be much more important. We're not resistant to knives or bullets. We're not fitted with shock collars that keep us in line. It's laws and punishment that keep society in check.

Indeed. However, we are playing a game for fun - there are not likely to be any RL type punishments (other than, ultimately, financial) in-game - being blown up by the Police has no lasting effect in-game and there is no removal of personal liberty....

 

[Aewarin Jameson]

Isn't the game save, matchmaking and logs server-side?

Correct.

The process (inferred - I don't know 100% for sure) but:

• You log into ED
• Server sends you your commander
• You launch into space
• After each jump point / movement in space (or periodically) the matchmaking system checks to see who is near you and if you can be merged*
• You receive details of other player and set up a point to point link with them
• Fight ensues
• AFAIK combat damage is locallised too (server may be involved but I doubt it)
• All combat telemetary (AFAIK) is between you and other person, not server (it may be involved but not much - light weight servers)
• One of you combat logs
• P2P links dropped

Exactly what happens during the dropping of the P2P links I don't know (maybe you "inform FD") but the fact remains - your ship was held in an instance maintained by you and periodically you upload telemetary and other stuff to the servers. It's not like on P2S games (such as WoW) where your avatar is controlled 100% by the server. There, if you drop, the server holds you in space giving you time to rejoin. If you don't you go "poof" and the server removes you from the game world. In ED your game world (space) is controlled by you.

Another aspect - all your NPCs are controlled by you as well.

I know 100% that the majority of the game experience is local as you can play this game on an airplane - check BW usage when in solo for example. The only difference when playing in a group / open is that the matchmaking server tracks roughly where you are in space and when you get near someone else instructs you on how to form a link - you do the rest.




*The instance is around you, not a region of space. When you're close enough to another person (50KM or something like that) your instances merge and the matchmaking does its stuff.

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

They don't necessarily have to be visible, they can be in another instance, which works with wings between players.

If I understood you correct that's a misunderstanding of how instancing works.

You are the instance, not a region of space.

All the NPCs you see in supercruise are controlled by you (and when you merge with someone you see their NPCs which, AFAIK, are controlled by them)

For police to be a detterent they will have to be visible by you, controlled by you in your bubble / instance.

FWIW FD claimed that they could easily add more NPCs ... proof would be them doing it