Why task-kill combat logging in Solo is a cheat and can affect others

[Falcon_D]

Want to fix CL? Fix one of it's root causes 1st. Non-consensual PvP in Open and Group. Then deal with the PvPers who CL.
CL in Solo is not even a consideration. So much so as PvP players using it as a such a weak excuse to implementing punishment for players who have no interest in PvP, that it's literally a strawman argument.

 

[[VR] DDM_Reaper20]

Combat logging is a cheat. Thats all. Marco said that, set the rule and nothing more to add.
There is no any justification for cheating. Cheating is not a justification for Your failures, alleged lack of time or in-game funds.
If you have no time for play, because of family, work, dog, whatever, then deal with that, move on, play with less expensive ships and adjust your expectations for the options you have and are possible for You.

Any try of justification combat logging is a cry of poor people. This is a multiplayer game. Want be good? Then GitGud, and blaze your own trial.

I don't combat-log, so please don't shoot me on sight . . . (if you do, that's totally fine, I'll fight back, then play Brave Sir Robin once I'm almost done in )

There is one issue: Connectivity issues. Today, I got kicked out THREE TIMES by the game. To others, it might have looked like I was combat-logging (it was in Open; as far as I am aware, there was no human CMDR around, and anyway, I had shields up and was getting the better of my opponents when that happend, so I hope nobody thought I was doing that . . .) I wasn't, though. It wasn't my connection, either. It was the game.

Unless the devs somehow manage to make the connections iron-clad, there is a very good chance that supposed combat-loggers are simply people who were kicked out by the game.

 

[z993126]

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.

Obvious solution: 15-second (or more) delay before ship is removed from game, regardless of menu-based, intentional combat-logging, or computer's power supply blowing up *cough* (protip: 450 W isn't enough to drive E: D on an i7-950/GTX950 system).

 

[Zambrick]

Sandro Sammarco is right. A task-kill combat log is a cheat in any mode of play.

And not necessarily an academic one.

The only mode of play in which it is impossible to affect others is the training missions.

Yet there seems to me (judging from literally hundreds of posts in current threads) to be a widespread misconception that combat logging is relevant only to direct PvP combat, hence only to Open.

I would like to challenge that. Of course we'll all agree that Open is a far more pressing issue. But part of my motivation is that I also want to challenge the prevalent notion that ED in Solo (or Private Group) is inherently non-competitive.

It might be such. But not necessarily.

In the following examples a Solo or PG task-killer has used an immortality cheat to promote themselves over other players:

1. The explorer who task-kills to preserve data and thus gets his name on systems in place of a Cmdr whose journey overlapped with his, or future Cmdrs.

2. The CG-er who task-kills to preserve bounties or combat bonds and thus secures a top spot or percentage in place of another Cmdr competing in the same CG.

3. The Powerplayer who task-kills in order to preserve merits he is delivering to fortify a system, thus preventing players from another Power from successfully undermining that system.

4. The UA-bomber who task-kills when his drives are blown by an NPC pirate, thus preserving and delivering his Unknown Artefacts and taking another player group's station offline.

5. The BGS-attacker who works in Private Group with a wing, destroying NPC authority ships and task-killing when threatened so as most efficiently to tank the influence of a rival player group.

Every one of the above is merely cheating to win.

About 18 months ago FDev stated that players had been banned for using hacks to take the top spots in Conflict Zone CG's (doubtless in Solo).

A task-kill is the same as an immortality, hull always >1% hack. It is just a different means of achieving the cheat. Solo task-killing is the same as Solo hacking.

What is more it is always completely unnecessary and - even worse - sometimes I expect completely pre-meditated.

Some explorers fly defensible ships and seek player escort in Private Group from Cmdrs such as Iridium Wing. Whereas others use a min/maxed build and - let's be realistic - some must fly with their network cable clamped between their teeth when they get near the bubble.

And if they jerk that cable out, every system they secure their name on (permanently) over every other Cmdr in this game is a prize they just won by cheating.

And we haven't even got to Open yet ...

How many posts about this has been started. This is going to be more whining. If a PM has read this please close it out. This has been discussed over and over again ad nauseum. Its just a place for salt to gather and frankly its tiring and sad.

 

[MottiKhan]

Pulling the plug makes no sense to me. That being said, meh.

 

[Faybs]

Obvious solution: 15-second (or more) delay before ship is removed from game, regardless of menu-based, intentional combat-logging, or computer's power supply blowing up *cough* (protip: 450 W isn't enough to drive E: D on an i7-950/GTX950 system).

That unfortunately can't be done because there is no server where the ship "lives". You can't just say "well ok just move the ship's instance to the PC that didn't log" because then one could easily abuse that by using a firewall to remove the other player from your instance (which is not combat logging because the adjudication server can still see you) and then pick off the pilotless ship at your leisure.

 

[Asp Explorer]

It gets even better than that - you could selectively block on a timer and build up small fleets of "absent player" ships to the point where you cause lag, farm easy kills, or even a player logs back inside a copy of himself and blows up for the lulz

 

[Eidolon]

OMG I'm already ticked off about the 15 second delay in Solo/PG and the OP wants to make it worse?

Please, give it up.
When RL calls sometimes I have to quit out, I'm not a billionaire and my rebuys would hurt all the more if I'm forced to go AFK.
15 second timer has forced me to end task before now (in my PG). It has accomplished nothing for me and my friends other than being a pain. A pain bought on by PvP'ers bleating on about it until it was implemented for all modes (sigh).

I counter propose that the 15 second timer be optional for Solo/PG.

Thanks in advance.

 

[Truesilver]

I've said this countless times now - there is one solution that nobody will really like, but is the only viable solution I can think of:

Separate the BGS in Solo, Private and Open.

What happens in Open stays in Open.
What happens in Solo stays in Solo.
What happens in Private stays in Private.

Good post Cmdr IndigoWyrd and repped. I have mixed feelings about this proposal, personally (which of course most of us are aware of).

I would love it:

I personally would love the gameplay that this would generate in the Open galaxy. It's about the only thing that could get me interested in the numbers side of the BGS or Powerplay (I have worked the Eravate BGS when I was in Adle's Armada but only a tiny bit and only then out of a sense of obligation).

I'd inevitably be the PvP knucklehead. I would love to defend my BGS buddies, attack other people's systems etc all in the knowledge that they couldn't hurt us or defend against us except in Open. I'd RNG a Cutter or Python specifically outfitted for destroying non-combat ships. I'd park interceptors in key places to respond rapidly to any threat. It would all be great fun.

However...

I can't help but feel that the Galaxy and the game would be diminished knowing that there were three or more of them. That when I read about events in Eravate or Nanomam or Harma or (in the old days) Leesti it's like - which Galaxy?

Indeed, my very first PvP was generated by the threat of The Code flipping Leesti from Alliance control back in around March 2015. It was amazing how the random Galaxy responded to that and went there to fight both PvP and PvE.

My former player group was purely PvP-ers when I joined but we were later joined by PvE guys, including from Mobius. I think notwithstanding a bit of initial trepidation we universally felt that this enriched the team.

Indeed, many of the PvE guys got into PvP and - yes - a number of the PvP guys got into the BGS.

So in many ways the shared BGS is what actually brings the Galaxy together (or could, if it got more love).

So, I'm conflicted.

All academic though because we'll be able to play as Thargoids before FDev would ever implement this proposal...

 

[Faybs]

Good post Cmdr IndigoWyrd and repped. I have mixed feelings about this proposal, personally (which of course most of us are aware of).

I would love it:

I personally would love the gameplay that this would generate in the Open galaxy. It's about the only thing that could get me interested in the numbers side of the BGS or Powerplay (I have worked the Eravate BGS when I was in Adle's Armada but only a tiny bit and only then out of a sense of obligation).

I'd inevitably be the PvP knucklehead. I would love to defend my BGS buddies, attack other people's systems etc all in the knowledge that they couldn't hurt us or defend against us except in Open. I'd RNG a Cutter or Python specifically outfitted for destroying non-combat ships. I'd park interceptors in key places to respond rapidly to any threat. It would all be great fun.

However...

I can't help but feel that the Galaxy and the game would be diminished knowing that there were three or more of them. That when I read about events in Eravate or Nanomam or Harma or (in the old days) Leesti it's like - which Galaxy?

Indeed, my very first PvP was generated by the threat of The Code flipping Leesti from Alliance control back in around March 2015. It was amazing how the random Galaxy responded to that and went there to fight both PvP and PvE.

My former player group was purely PvP-ers when I joined but we were later joined by PvE guys, including from Mobius. I think notwithstanding a bit of initial trepidation we universally felt that this enriched the team.

Indeed, many of the PvE guys got into PvP and - yes - a number of the PvP guys got into the BGS.

So in many ways the shared BGS is what actually brings the Galaxy together (or could, if it got more love).

So, I'm conflicted.

All academic though because we'll be able to play as Thargoids before FDev would ever implement this proposal...

The biggest problem with the parallel BGS solution is that it could greatly hinder FD's ability to use community goals to shape the history of the galaxy. Imagine for example that there is a trading CG in Maia to build a new base, and for various BGS reasons in open the system is a high security system and in solo it's an anarchy, so due to high levels of piracy the CG succeeds in one mode and fails on the other. What does that mean for the CG? does the base only get built in open?

 

[Underhook]

OP if you want to go to that extent then CMDR's who get the alpha/beta insurance discount are cheaters.

 

[Truesilver]

OP if you want to go to that extent then CMDR's who get the alpha/beta insurance discount are cheaters.

No, they just have a within-the-rules advantage.

Anyway, in order better to explain my reasons for calling attention to these issues in this unusual way, I've edited a post of mine from the depths of page 4 into the end of the op:-

Ha ha, thank you Mr von Hackbeil, sir, much appreciated!

While this (I hope) isn't a trollolo thread (even if it is Friday) I'm not personally especially motivated by concerns over the BGS, Powerplay, CG's etc.

What really lies behind my motivation is the sheer number of times I've seen forum users say (in context):

'A log is a win. How does it affect you that they didn't rebuy?'

I've answered that in the context of Open PvP many times but no matter how much detail I give concerning player group warfare or the protection of new players, the answers never seem to register.

Eventually I realised that this is because most users of this forum have little appreciation of the amount of competition there is in this game (it's different on reddit, for better or worse) - and the variety of forms that competition takes - and think all combat is two (or more) randoms meeting once and once only.

One of the main reasons logging matters in Open is that the participants in the combat frequently have agendas.

So I thought that perhaps if I could push the envelope wider - really challenge people's thinking about logging and competition via examples concerning Solo - that might (for a few) get them thinking more Open-mindedly (geddit?) also.

And as I said earlier, more positively (and perhaps in due course in a fresh thread) I would like to encourage more players into the competitive endgame (goals being PvP, BGS or Powerplay-related ... not personal acquisition). I hope that FDev will in due course enrich the content there because to me that is where true longevity lies - not in an annual Groundhog Day of grinding for new, more powerful power-creep modules.

 

[Jukelo]

If you have an ounce of integrity, whether combat logging has a measurable impact on your gameplay shouldn't even be part of the equation. The rules are the rules, cheating is cheating and should be punished as a matter of principle.

 

[Asp Explorer]

That does kind of assume that players view there being some form of "endgame", and that it is competitive in some way.

You arguably have more "endgame" content in the starter Sidewinder, which many people it seems want to get out of as quickly as possible

 

[Mohrgan]

If you have an ounce of integrity, whether combat logging has a measurable impact on your gameplay shouldn't even be part of the equation. The rules are the rules, cheating is cheating and should be punished as a matter of principle.

What actions become a punishable cheat, rather than an annoying exploit is not well spelled out. Just look at Mode Swapping. The difference between a cheat and a legitimate exit is 15 seconds. That's it. The difference of fifteen seconds can't be worth all of this hand wringing. If there was no way to pull the plug, but 15 seconds to log out, the effect would be the same. Only the timing might change. Perspective. It's not like punishing players like the inquisition would save a win, rather than seeing scripts to get to the log out screen on every keyboard. Cheats are relative.

 

[varonica]

The biggest problem with the parallel BGS solution is that it could greatly hinder FD's ability to use community goals to shape the history of the galaxy. Imagine for example that there is a trading CG in Maia to build a new base, and for various BGS reasons in open the system is a high security system and in solo it's an anarchy, so due to high levels of piracy the CG succeeds in one mode and fails on the other. What does that mean for the CG? does the base only get built in open?

Even worse, what happens when the only players who turn up in Open for the CG are the griefers waiting for fat wallowing barges full of goods to turn up so they can a slaughter them and nothing ever happens? Oh dear the griefers would have to turn trader to try and get the CG done, poor them!

 

[Faybs]

Even worse, what happens when the only players who turn up in Open for the CG are the griefers waiting for fat wallowing barges full of goods to turn up so they can a slaughter them and nothing ever happens? Oh dear the griefers would have to turn trader to try and get the CG done, poor them!

I don't think the average griefer sees ED as anything but a shooting gallery, so they would just complain about the lack of con...er players in open and leave.

 

[z993126]

That unfortunately can't be done because there is no server where the ship "lives". You can't just say "well ok just move the ship's instance to the PC that didn't log" because then one could easily abuse that by using a firewall to remove the other player from your instance (which is not combat logging because the adjudication server can still see you) and then pick off the pilotless ship at your leisure.

Hmm. Sounds like sooner or later, a patch note about completely reworking how the instancing and networking is handled will Be a Thing.

Maybe have some kind of check where the timer only triggers when the adjudication server loses track of a ship, and does intermittent queries to make sure instances are all on the same page without having to directly oversee all interaction? (No idea how any of that works under-the-hood, so for all I know it's already doing something similar.)

 

[Asp Explorer]

Hmm. Sounds like sooner or later, a patch note about completely reworking how the instancing and networking is handled will Be a Thing.

Maybe have some kind of check where the timer only triggers when the adjudication server loses track of a ship, and does intermittent queries to make sure instances are all on the same page without having to directly oversee all interaction? (No idea how any of that works under-the-hood, so for all I know it's already doing something similar.)

Doesn't work like that I'm afraid.

Even if it did - you wouldn't like it.

 

[Starstrydur]

And what are you supposed to do when your controls malfunction, or your screen freezes, or any other bug happens? And how to tell when something malfunctions or not? Or real life attention is urgently needed? As i am writing this right now my hotas was bugging out because some windows update was doing something weird.

And why don't I notice the horrible consequences that pve loggers are affecting my game?