An investigation into Frontier's actions on Combat Logging

[StuartGT]

Not possible I'm afraid. FD have no way of knowing wether someones switch is developing a bad port, their neighbour is holding a microwave party, or a fibre landfall somewhere just had a boat crash into it.

Pro-tip: analytics. Pre-launch ED tracked "in combat" via client-side logs, which is now disabled. There is no reason whatsoever that the server cannot track this (when a CMDR is Open play) during matchmaking and combat. If a client reconnects to the server, and the server's last record of that CMDR was in combat (from either CMDR involved in the combat), increment some arbitrary tracking value. Once the value hits a certain threshold, take action. It really is that simple.

No-one has asked for instant repercussions of first offence combat loggers. What the OP states and proves is that repeat offenders are unpunished. That FDev Support don't even check the provided evidence, or logs, or take any action. I am of course assuming you've read the full OP.

Also - video evidence in Elite means absolutely nothing as far as proving combat logging - when the players taking the video can quite easily cut the connection to their victim and make it look like they combat logged when in fact, they are still connected and now either looking at the matchmaker error screen or stuck in a sound loop while they get re-routed.

Not relevant, see above.

CMDRs in Open play should be informed that a reliable, fast internet connection is required, otherwise they risk punishment if their "connection drops" during combat with another CMDR. There are two other fully playable modes for those that don't or are unsure.

 

[C4R1TON]

With 20 pages so far, does this still scratch the surface of the amount of players who actually care about combat logging? The last post, with poll showed totally opposite. Most really didn't care one way or another. Has those stats shifted since then or is this another opinion on the same problem? Haven't kept up with this just asking?

 

[StuartGT]

With 20 pages so far, does this still scratch the surface of the amount of players who actually care about combat logging? The last post, with poll showed totally opposite. Most really didn't care one way or another. Has those stats shifted since then or is this another opinion on the same problem? Haven't kept up with this just asking?

Unless you have information from the estimated 200k fortnightly players of the game, minority opinion polls from the the vocals on forums, Reddit, etc are not particularly relevant. Do you have a link to said poll please for arguments' sake?

 

[bitstorm]

Props to the Op and repped for the work that has gone into approaching this in a systematic way.

I have reported scores of loggers via the in-game report function, often offering video 'if required'. Never had a follow-up request.

I think perhaps the one thing that the Op's investigation hasn't dealt with is what would have happened if, say, the same guy or alt account was reported three times over a couple of weeks?

Then we might have a better idea of whether FDev are employing a system based on the number of flags, eg flag 1, do nothing but note for future reference, flag x, do something.

Here I might be being generous of course, idk, but it would be interesting.

As it is I agree with the others that have said that FDev need to tell the player base what the position is. I'd like to know whether my in-game reports have a purpose.

Can't help feeling you should have wrote the OP.

No accusations, no threats, no attempts at blackmail, no calling people liars.

Just an honest post with some concerns.

 

[Gunnet]

No-one has asked for instant repercussions of first offence combat loggers. What the OP states and proves is that repeat offenders are unpunished. That FDev Support don't even check the provided evidence, or logs, or take any action. I am of course assuming you've read the full OP.

Are you saying that the alternate accounts mentioned in the OP were engaging in persistent combat logging before this "investigation" began? Because they're presenting the fact that nothing happened to those accounts as "evidence".

 

[xdeath]

They'd have more time to take care of actual tickets if people stopped putting in stupid tickets because they got "griefed" in open or lost their ship because "NPC's are too strong."

I hope you are not implying that I have done this. The only time I sent support a ticket was when Frontier accidentally refunded me the full price of Horizons when I upgraded to beta. That was back in December last year.

Some of us don't abuse systems.

 

[C4R1TON]

Unless you have information from the estimated 200k fortnightly players of the game, opinions from the the vocals on forums, Reddit, etc are not particularly relevant. Do you have a link to said poll please?

I wish...I'll try to find where i saw it.. I almost want to say it was on reddit a few weeks ago..

 

[babelfisch]

With 20 pages so far, does this still scratch the surface of the amount of players who actually care about combat logging? The last post, with poll showed totally opposite. Most really didn't care one way or another. Has those stats shifted since then or is this another opinion on the same problem? Haven't kept up with this just asking?

It's just the same 10 people posting again and again with a few guests now and then.

 

[C4R1TON]

Unless you have information from the estimated 200k fortnightly players of the game, minority opinion polls from the the vocals on forums, Reddit, etc are not particularly relevant. Do you have a link to said poll please for arguments' sake?

But i understand Polls are just that polls..it depends on the majority of people who happen to see it. In this case, it was overwhelming voted that most didn't care about combat loggers.

 

[StuartGT]

Are you saying that the alternate accounts mentioned in the OP were engaging in persistent combat logging before this "investigation" began? Because they're presenting the fact that nothing happened to those accounts as "evidence".

The screenshots of support messages in the OP are dated September/October, along with "none of our alt accounts have received any form of punishment to this day either".

I'm not sure why you need to ask me, as I assume you read the OP?

 

[Asp Explorer]

Pro-tip: analytics. Pre-launch ED tracked "in combat" via client-side logs, which is now disabled. There is no reason whatsoever that the server cannot track this (when a CMDR is Open play) during matchmaking and combat. If a client reconnects to the server, and the server's last record of that CMDR was in combat (from either CMDR involved in the combat), increment some arbitrary tracking value. Once the value hits a certain threshold, take action. It really is that simple.

No-one has asked for instant repercussions of first offence combat loggers. What the OP states and proves is that repeat offenders are unpunished. That FDev Support don't even check the provided evidence, or logs, or take any action. I am of course assuming you've read the full OP.


Not relevant, see above.

CMDRs in Open play should be informed that a reliable, fast internet connection is required, otherwise they risk punishment if their "connection drops" during combat with another CMDR. There are two other fully playable modes for those that don't or are unsure.

Trivial to game I'm afraid. I don't want to get into technicalities but putting a player into a Combat state serverside can easily be countered by either player disconnecting the entity that put him in Combat. If it's no longer in the same instance on the next server status tick - what is the player in Combat with?

It'll be exploited by chained failed interdictions by both sides and all sorts of unpleasantness.

As for demanding a reliable, fast interenet connection - sure that's always nice to have - and getting the game to do a basic throughput and latency test would be a nice thing.

It's utterly meaningless though. If you want to lag someone out of your instance - there are dozens of ways of doing so.

 

[Cosmos]

Not possible I'm afraid. FD have no way of knowing wether someones switch is developing a bad port, their neighbour is holding a microwave party, or a fibre landfall somewhere just had a boat crash into it.

Also - video evidence in Elite means absolutely nothing as far as proving combat logging - when the players taking the video can quite easily cut the connection to their victim and make it look like they combat logged when in fact, they are still connected and now either looking at the matchmaker error screen or stuck in a sound loop while they get re-routed.

People with a 'poor connection' that negatively affects the game experince of others can be dealt with in the following way:

https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showt...t-why-not-FD?p=4327766&viewfull=1#post4327766

If folks have a crappy connection that really is their problem and no one elses.

 

[bitstorm]

Pro-tip: analytics. Pre-launch ED tracked "in combat" via client-side logs, which is now disabled. There is no reason whatsoever that the server cannot track this (when a CMDR is Open play) during matchmaking and combat. If a client reconnects to the server, and the server's last record of that CMDR was in combat (from either CMDR involved in the combat), increment some arbitrary tracking value. Once the value hits a certain threshold, take action. It really is that simple.

But the connection is between peers, there is no loss of connection to a server. My peer has lost connection to yours, who's client was at fault? Who "cut" the connection?

I mean beyond that, I might be in Aus, you in the UK, yet there is nothing wrong with either of our connections. Add in high p2p traffic due to multiple CMDRs or lots going on and you increase the chance of an issue. Peers share information, I have been in instances where cargo has literally appeared from nowhere when multiple players are present, and players just disappear or be invisible despite seeing their chat messages. Or cargo scooped but stay there resulting in duplicates due to some peers talking and others not.

I have even seen Frontier staff, live on stream disconnect mid combat, probably due to multiple players being present.

 

[Jukelo]

Didn't we just have a thread about this? PvP-only issue really and therefore presumably of little interest to the majority user-base. Personally I don't care about combat logging so combat log as much as you want and as much as you want; I don't see it affecting other people's game and it doesn't seem to have any affect on mine.

I would very much like to respond to this comment with a usual sarcastic remark or comment. But it is difficult when it is just so factual.

Well I guess we should display this much apathy the next time someone from Mobius comes whinging about mode invasion.

 

[Cosmos]

Trivial to game I'm afraid. I don't want to get into technicalities but putting a player into a Combat state serverside can easily be countered by either player disconnecting the entity that put him in Combat. If it's no longer in the same instance on the next server status tick - what is the player in Combat with?

It'll be exploited by chained failed interdictions by both sides and all sorts of unpleasantness.

As for demanding a reliable, fast interenet connection - sure that's always nice to have - and getting the game to do a basic throughput and latency test would be a nice thing.

It's utterly meaningless though. If you want to lag someone out of your instance - there are dozens of ways of doing so.

You are the only person on this entire forum who has a history of making veiled suggestions that folks tinker with their networking re the game.

In effect you are promoting explonting and cheating by other means and have done so for years. The fact that folks can encourage others to cheat and exploit on these forums is revealing of how lame Frontier are when it comes to those who play the game fairly in respect of its designed mechanics.

 

[Asp Explorer]

If folks have a crappy connection that really is their problem and no one elses.

Not really - if someone has a stable enough connection to play the game, but their equipment isn't up to the task of connecting other players to their instance - guess what happens

 

[Gunnet]

The screenshots of support messages in the OP are dated September/October, along with "none of our alt accounts have received any form of punishment to this day either".

I'm not sure why you need to ask me, as I assume you read the OP?

I'm asking you because you said that nobody was asking for players to be punished for a single instance of combat logging. The "investigators" combat logged once on their alts and expected them to be subject to some kind of sanction. Either they want punishment for "first offence" combat logging, or combat logging isn't a new activity for those alts.

 

[Cosmos]

But the connection is between peers, there is no loss of connection to a server. My peer has lost connection to yours, who's client was at fault? Who "cut" the connection?

Does it matter? If I happen to conveniently lose my connection every time I'm about to lose my ship then its pretty obvious whats going on.

 

[Pyrotiger]

"CMDRs in Open play should be informed that a reliable, fast internet connection is required, otherwise they risk punishment if their "connection drops" during combat with another CMDR. There are two other fully playable modes for those that don't or are unsure."

Nah. Many who have a reliable, fast internet connection still have their connection drop with a alarming regularity.

Solution: offline mode, as promised. Oh yeah. Another lie.

 

[Cosmos]

Not really - if someone has a stable enough connection to play the game, but their equipment isn't up to the task of connecting other players to their instance - guess what happens

I'm rather sick and tired of your smart alec replies in view of exploiting and cheating. Publish your IP address, I'll happily put you on the firewall exclusion list.