Logging During Combat Punishment [Proposal]

[MONTItheRed]

How about....if the interdictor does not provide any sort of role play, the "victim" is allowed to log?

Players can already log through the game menu. That isn't included in the definition of combat logging. Depending on who you ask, it is either incredibly easy or hard to evade an interdiction or escape via hi/low wake. The in-game punishment of pirates/gankers/murderers does need some work. The proposal I created was meant for those that combat log (exploit). The same punishment system could be applied to griefers/cheaters/exploiters.

Most pirates I've come across do some RP, and sure if I do what they want they let me go.
If I fight back they usually decimate my shields and 50% or more of my hull...usually take out my thrusters....then let me go (usually after saying "good fight, thanks".

Griefers/Gankers simply don't....they attack without a word and with the sole intention of blowing you to pieces.
This is not fun especailly as I'm absolute rubbish at combat!

I'd separate the griefers from the gankers; the two are not the same, but most griefers also gank. The ganking, murdering, pirating (not against the Terms of Service) should be addressed through a better crime & punishment system in-game.

And in other words, OP, what you are saying is that if I choose play in open, I'm therefore bound to play by all the griefer/ganker rules and be punished if I don't play their way.
There's heaps of youtube vids where a griefer jumps in and interdicts someone, who then out pilots the griefer and as soon as they start to lose they combat log....now there's a group of people who should be punished!

Clicker

You don't have to play by anyone's rules other than those created by Fdev and the mechanics of the game. However, the devs have said that combat logging is an exploit (breaking the rules). Those who break the rules outside of what can be punished in-game should be punished by mechanics outside the game, or combat logging should be re-categorized. This redefinition could be several ways: not an exploit, thus not punishable; a non-punishable exploit; or something else altogether.

With regards to a group that should be punished, the punishment should be uniformly applied. This isn't about who is or is not combat logging, or the method of determining guilt of combat logging, merely a possible punishment system within the framework of six methods of punishment.

- - - Updated - - -

Because it's an interesting idea to think about.

Similar to bringing up the idea of punishing combat-loggers; there's simply no technically feasible way to accurately detect whether someone is logging simply to evade death vs. having a flaky connection. Sure, if it happens every time they are engaged in combat, you can suspect foul play is involved, but absent admission-of-guilt from the logger, there's no way to prove it.

It is an interesting idea to think about. I don't think that Fdev is able to prove beyond a doubt who combat logs, merely beyond a reasonable doubt, or maybe even by their opinion. I haven't found a reference to how they determine guilt of combat logging, which is why I didn't include a criticism of that because it's an unknown.

 

[MONTItheRed]

The sense of entitlement that some members of the PVP crowd have to continue their seal clubbing nonsense is amusing but does get a little old after a while.

I don't consider myself a "member of the PVP crowd"; and while I do enjoy PVP and can understand how others enjoy PVP, I don't see it as a very relevant part of the game.

As long as the game is based on P2P architecture, there is no way to enforce persistence of the CMDR's ship and combat logging will always exist.

I didn't bring that up because that's beyond the scope of this proposal. I don't claim that this proposal will stop combat logging entirely, merely that it would act as a deterrent to combat logging and as a punishment to those found guilty of combat logging. I don't think there IS a way to stop combat logging entirely.

As long as the game continues in a ridiculously buggy state and core game mechanics such as interdiction do not work, there will always be justification for combat logging.

I agree that connection issues, interdiction problems, and instance problems need to be improved; but that was outside the scope of the proposal. The issue with justification is whether Fdev considers it valid justification. Their perceived inaction on the matter lends evidence to support the claim that there is valid justification for combat logging. People are able to justify to themselves and others a wide range of behaviors. A recent post on the Elite Dangerous Community Facebook group justifies destroying anything without shields for...I don't think there was a reason given, just a statement of intent. Some activities (trading, mining, exploration, bounty hunting, running missions) don't seem to need justification. Other activities players feel a desire to justify, whether those activities are ganking, griefing, combat logging, cheating, etc.

As long as the game continues to remain unstable and crashes frequently, there will be no reliable way to distinguish between intentional combat logging and game crashes.

As I've said before, and attempted to clarify in the opening post, this proposal isn't about how guilt of combat logging is found. Fdev have some way of determining guilt, though I don't know what that method is, so I can't critique it.

As long as FD insists on increasing the "death cost" by introducing grindy mechanics such as NPC pilots who are insta-killed on ship destruction, there will always be a strong incentive to combat log.

Regardless of the incentive, as it stands currently, combat logging is an exploit. There are also incentives and justification (however weak) to cheating, exploiting, ganking, griefing; but that doesn't mean those activities should be tolerated. Simply because something has an incentive or justification doesn't mean that people should be doing it, such as ganking, griefing, cheating, exploiting.

As long as the PVP crowd predominantly engages in seal clubbing instead of demonstrating a desire for balanced PVP, the PVE players will always have a strong incentive to combat log.

I agree that there is little effort from the PVP community to present a better front to the community at large. I've recommended creating battleground systems for PVP, or routine openly published PVP, or PVP tournaments, or expanding the ship roster for CQC/Arena, or guidance from Fdev on what their intent/vision of PVP is. So far little of that has gained traction.

As long as there is no effective crime and punishment system, PVE players will always have a strong incentive to combat log.

I agree that there needs to be a better crime and punishment system.

As long as there is no incentive for PVE players to engage in PVP when interdicted, PVE players will always have a strong incentive to combat log.

Combat logging isn't the problem, it's a consequence of all the other problems in the game that FD is either unable or unwilling to address.

Combat logging isn't THE problem, it is A problem. A problem that Fdev currently consider an exploit. A problem that a very vocal and very small minority of players get emotional about.

I think the running trend is that somehow incentive justifies behavior, and that isn't the case.

 

[V'larr]

I don't like the OP's proposals.

To my mind, there is really only one path forward with both griefing & combat logging:

If anybody in Open breaks the rules, such as where combat logging & griefing (e.g. harassment) are concerned, their access to Open should be revoked, starting with short temporary bans but possibly scaling up to permanent ones.

It's simple, it's straightforward, nobody gets hurt or prevented from playing the game, and it achieves the goal of preventing these things from occuring again, at least with the CMDRs involved in a given instance of this happening

 

[MONTItheRed]

If anybody in Open breaks the rules, such as where combat logging & griefing (e.g. harassment) are concerned, their access to Open should be revoked, starting with short temporary bans but possibly scaling up to permanent ones.

That would fall under the incarceration or banishment methods.
I believe the punishment you are referring to is the shadowban, though I haven't heard Fdev describe in much detail.

 

[Comrade Error]

Only Greifers care about CLogging.

I've never seen evidence to the contrary.

Here's evidence to the contrary: Me.

 

[Roland2]

I don't like the OP's proposals.

To my mind, there is really only one path forward with both griefing & combat logging:

If anybody in Open breaks the rules, such as where combat logging & griefing (e.g. harassment) are concerned, their access to Open should be revoked, starting with short temporary bans but possibly scaling up to permanent ones.

It's simple, it's straightforward, nobody gets hurt or prevented from playing the game, and it achieves the goal of preventing these things from occuring again, at least with the CMDRs involved in a given instance of this happening

This implies that playing in open is a privilege to be revoked. All players have the right to play in whatever mode they want. Your proposal also assumes that not being able to play in open is a punishment. It's not. Open is just a matchmaking option. Combat Logging (CL) is against FD's rules, not "Open rules". If FD were to "punish" CLing, (I don't think they will or should) the punishment needs to apply to all game modes not just open.

 

[Comrade Error]

This implies that playing in open is a privilege to be revoked. All players have the right to play in whatever mode they want. Your proposal also assumes that not being able to play in open is a punishment. It's not. Open is just a matchmaking option. Combat Logging (CL) is against FD's rules, not "Open rules". If FD were to "punish" CLing, (I don't think they will or should) the punishment needs to apply to all game modes not just open.

It absolutely is a privilege. In many games your privilege to play online can easily be revoked permanently by simply using glitches or exploits, this game included. People have been shadowbanned before.

 

[verminstar]

I have never once clogged and never would...however that is a personal choice based on my own principles which I would nevrr impose on others...as in I wont judge those who do. I would even consider it a viable tactic to escape a griefer...griefing the griefer...always makes me smile just thinking about it I have to admit.

Ergo I cannot support any form of punishment in any shape of form...fer me personally, shadowbanning would be a reward anyway as I play almost exclusively in solo mode anyway. I suppose its all down to perspective at the end of the day.

True, FD claim its an exploitbut have never done anything to remove it and have seemingly little interest in pursuing cloggers anyway. FD have said many things, none of which would ever see the cold light of day, so I would take what they say now with a hefty pinch of salt. Actions speak louder than words and a whisper just wont cut the mustard Im afraid.

 

[Ian Doncaster]

For what it's worth, I had my first opponent combat log on me last night, and it was a little annoying. It was an NPC - so clearly Frontier is trying to make them behave realistically...

A relatively straightforward approach which shouldn't cause problems for people who suffer genuine network disconnects or similar issues.

1) If you are in "danger" due to other ships, the game periodically sends the details of those other ships (type, loadout, engineering, damage levels, ammo levels, etc. - if a player, who; if not, any mission-relevant statuses like faction or archetype) to Frontier's servers.
2) If you leave danger, the game sends a "clear list" command to the servers.
3) When the game is launched, it checks the contents of the list. If it's not empty, then:
- for NPCs, it spawns an equivalent hostile NPC next to you
- for players, it checks if the player is still around (you suffered a temp disconnect, and managed to get back in before they left). If not, it spawns a hostile NPC [1] with the same ship and combat rank (and ideally the un-weakened AI of 2.1.0 - so subsystem targeting, etc.)

So:
- if you suffer genuine network disconnects or client crashes, you get an improved experience, because you can carry on the fight where you left off without having to find your targets again.
- if you need to go somewhere in a hurry, you can menu log or even kill the client with a clean conscience - the fight will still be there when you get back.
- if you are just trying to avoid losing your ship, the fight will also still be there when you get back.
- if someone combat logs on you, a copy of you will be there when they come back to finish the job

No further punishment - or even detection - of combat logging is then required.

 

[Waldi]

At this stage i think FD should just shadow ban both parties for a year and leave it at that

 

[DCLXVI your God]

Oh no!
Someone combat logged!
How terrible!

Or.... [squeeeee]

 

[cheeseheads]

love these threads. means more ganker tears [haha]

 

[MONTItheRed]

I don't agree with any raving that could turn a game into malware. If combat logging bothers some players that much then maybe those players should seek pro help.

What do you mean by raving? This proposal doesn't deal with altering or damaging player's computer or connection so I don't see how it would be malware.

- - - Updated - - -

This implies that playing in open is a privilege to be revoked. All players have the right to play in whatever mode they want. Your proposal also assumes that not being able to play in open is a punishment. It's not. Open is just a matchmaking option. Combat Logging (CL) is against FD's rules, not "Open rules". If FD were to "punish" CLing, (I don't think they will or should) the punishment needs to apply to all game modes not just open.

Playing in any mode is a privilege in that it can be revoked. For some playing in open could be a punishment, for others playing in solo could be a punishment, which is why I said in the opening post that several forms of punishment should be used together because the devs can't know what one type would be most successful as a deterrent and punishment.

If Fdev are not going to punish combat logging, they should redefine the term. If it is an exploit, and against the rules, those found guilty of it should be punished, else why have rules at all? Not punishing those that break the rules encourages and enables, or acts as justification for others, to continue breaking the rules.

 

[MONTItheRed]

It absolutely is a privilege. In many games your privilege to play online can easily be revoked permanently by simply using glitches or exploits, this game included. People have been shadowbanned before.

While I agree that playing is a privilege, I haven't heard of anyone being shadowbanned, or even a post from the devs defining what shadowbanning is.

Shadowbanning as I understand it is punishing the offending player by sending them to solo. As others have mentioned, this may not be an actual punishment, and therefore wouldn't act as a deterrent to reduce combat logging (or other activities against the Terms of Service, EULA, etc). Therefore other forms of punishment should be included, such as the combat logger being fined their rebuy and those in combat against the combat logger awarded the rebuy.

Alternatively, the player could be banned from the game altogether, for some time. I'll add that to the proposal.

 

[MONTItheRed]

- Players have brought up that being sent to solo or open may not be a punishment, and therefore not act as a deterrent to reduce combat logging (or other activities that break the Terms of Service, EULA, etc). Therefore I have added an additional banishment/shunning method.

- Temporary banishment (banning) from the game could act as a viable punishment and deterrent to combat logging. This could be implemented by preventing the player’s account from connecting to open/solo/private groups for some period of time. Disabling the player’s ability to connect to the game would have the additional benefit of preventing players from abusing the financial burden and/or restitution methods.

Based on feedback from multiple people, it seems the most popular form of punishment for combat logging and other offenses, would be a combination of banishment, financial burden, and restitution.

- Banishment: the guilty party is prevented from connecting to game modes. The duration of this banning could increase with frequency of combat logging.

- Financial burden: fine (or bounty) the guilty party their rebuy. The ability to clear fines and bounties would need to be reworked for this form to be more

- Restitution: the rebuy of the guilty party added as a collectible bounty to those players engaged in combat with the combat logger. Splitting this bounty among all players could prevent this method being used to create free money. Additionally, if paired with the banishment, the time out of game would get longer and longer, meaning the restitution element would be more difficult to farm.

 

[Kriidah]

In conclusion.. Anyone who wants to Combat Log should his esc, and select to go to the main menu, agree to wait the 15 seconds or so and.. boom, bypass all of these silly and more likely than not, illegal punishments.

The only ones this in the end hurts would be proper Pirates. Why? Pirates who priate to RP it out are often doing it more for fun interactions, than 'winning' or 'notching a kill'. They would often give 15, 20, or even 30 seconds to the victim just to pause as they say what they want from them. Then a minute or so of talking back or forth or threats. So.. who are those that would be 'helped' by giving the assailant another 5-15 seconds other than those who drop in and start firing once aligned?

 

[MONTItheRed]

I have never once clogged and never would...however that is a personal choice based on my own principles which I would nevrr impose on others...as in I wont judge those who do. I would even consider it a viable tactic to escape a griefer...griefing the griefer...always makes me smile just thinking about it I have to admit.

We should be more concerned with what the devs consider viable. Since there are already ways to avoid PVP entirely, I don't see combat logging (or other exploit activities) as viable or justifiable.

Ergo I cannot support any form of punishment in any shape of form...fer me personally, shadowbanning would be a reward anyway as I play almost exclusively in solo mode anyway. I suppose its all down to perspective at the end of the day.

True, FD claim its an exploitbut have never done anything to remove it and have seemingly little interest in pursuing cloggers anyway. FD have said many things, none of which would ever see the cold light of day, so I would take what they say now with a hefty pinch of salt. Actions speak louder than words and a whisper just wont cut the mustard Im afraid.

Not punishing those guilty of breaking the rules seems like a bad policy to me. If griefing is against the rules, but the devs don't punish it, why make it against the rules in the first place?

I agree that Fdevs perceived lack of action and transparency on punishing players (regardless of the offense) seems to indicate either their uncaring or unwilling nature with regards to griefing and combat logging.

However, the base problem is determination of guilt. Since determining combat logging and griefing can be difficult, punishment for those offenses could also be difficult.

- - - Updated - - -

At this stage i think FD should just shadow ban both parties for a year and leave it at that

I think that is a bit extreme. Especially punishing those that haven't broken any rules.

- - - Updated - - -

Oh no!
Someone combat logged!
How terrible!

Or.... [squeeeee]

Terrible is a relative term that depends on the person. What should be the focus is whether or not something breaks the rules (illegal). Punishing for morals is a weak system because morals are relative. Legals on the other hand should be objective (justice is blind) and equally and fairly applied.

 

[MONTItheRed]

In conclusion.. Anyone who wants to Combat Log should his esc, and select to go to the main menu, agree to wait the 15 seconds or so and.. boom, bypass all of these silly and more likely than not, illegal punishments.

Escaping through the in game menu isn't combat logging, therefore not punishable under this proposal. Other than the physical pain method, what makes the other methods illegal?

The only ones this in the end hurts would be proper Pirates. Why? Pirates who priate [sp] to RP it out are often doing it more for fun interactions, than 'winning' or 'notching a kill'. They would often give 15, 20, or even 30 seconds to the victim just to pause as they say what they want from them. Then a minute or so of talking back or forth or threats. So.. who are those that would be 'helped' by giving the assailant another 5-15 seconds other than those who drop in and start firing once aligned?

How would any of the methods proposed give the assailant another 5-15 seconds?

 

[AveCandido]

A very good method for those who buy Elite do not buy again any expansion and save the game Elite Dangerous by Seculam and Seculorum

 

[White Shark]

Question. How would such a system protect those who have simply lost connection or experienced a power cut? Losing connection happens to me a lot on Xbox, usually during such busy times like a combat zone or RES.