Combat Logging Punishment Proposal

[varonica]

No goods ideas?
Ok then.

Are you hard of reading then? I was referring to the OP's post, you want to propose a different system then post it in it's own thread, I will then comment on it. I am not going to read through ten pages of thread with dozens of different proposals when the OP's post, which is the subject of this thread, is simply garbage and should have been dismissed as such. Your proposal is not the same as the OP's proposal and nothing will make that acceptable, how hard is that to understand?

 

[Robert Maynard]

I've updated the OP to make it clear that we are talking only about disconnects whilst the ship is in danger, not all disconnects.

Also added links to some helpful posts.

"In danger" does not only mean "in combat".

 

[Ozram]

Thats the trick to fixing it, making it so it's not actually necessary to Clog.

The main thing is to Remove the the high risk/fear that players have towards Greifers when it comes to the costly rebuys and time losses players have experienced, due to Greifing. I know the Cry me a river crowd will say get gud or some other shizzel, but the bear fact is some players will not ever get gud, or want to. So having several million wiped out from thier funds will hurt, especially if the player spent weeks getting it in the first case.

You only have to take a read through the new players thread to see how many people quit the game in the first few days of playing due to rebuys and how "hard" it is.
My starter system was Evarate, when I started there was nobody there in open so I was ok. The other day I took a visit there were several players camped out sniping noobs

A while back I came to the rescue of a trader who was being attacked, he only had small pulse lasers and had his ship rigged for max storage, so from his point he has his rebuy to think about and his maxed out T9 cargo hold full of expensive stuff.

The attacker nearly took me to the rebuy screen but luckily for me and the other player, a guy in an Anaconda turned up and wasted him.
It would have been all to easy to Clog for everyone involved in that but nobody did.

i think it requires a few base level changes to the way the game plays out this will if set correctly would cure this and many more ills.

A bit of carrot to go with that stick. Yeah, I follow. Frankly, a good start would be to get rid of the FSD Reboot missiles. Being able to at least high wake should always be an option. A crime and punishment system would also go a long way. Still, the C&P has been difficult for FD and in the meantime, something should be done.
I still think the best option would be a set of blocks from open/group (relegate offenders to solo) which increase in time with each infraction. I'd start with 24 hrs, then a week, then a month, six months, a year and then lifetime ban. Anything along those lines would be good.

 

[Riverside]

"In danger" does not only mean "in combat".

You are right, but AFAIK the game does not differentiate.

 

[Siobhan]

"In danger" does not only mean "in combat".

Does it include "near a station while in possession of a docking computer" too then?

 

[Riverside]

Does it include "near a station while in possession of a docking computer" too then?

Is that a situation where a player is likely to want to CLog?

 

[Sunleader]

From the feedback over the last day or so it seems clear that there are lots of things in the game that some people consider to be exploits, but one that stands out as fairly universally accepted to be a 'cheat' is Combat Logging.

There are lots of innocent reasons why a client may disconnect ungracefully, and unlike the recent Engineers cheat it's much harder to determine whether a CLogger did so deliberately or not.

I'd like to propose a simple 1hr ban from the game following any disconnect*, no matter what the reason.


*whilst the ship is in danger.

If a client is having connection difficulties, waiting a while before trying to reconnect is probably a good idea anyway, if they are genuinely trying to diagnose why the game crashed or their internet connection dropped, pinging the server & other stuff can be done in this time anyway.

If the client CLogs to avoid being ganked the gankers 'win' by preventing the CLogger from reaching the station (for an hour) etc, adding something to the gameplay rather than simply avoiding it.

If the client CLogs to avoid punishment (eg spawncamper being attacked by the AA) then the newbies have been given some breathing space where the ganker cannot simply relog & carry on popping sidewinders.


Would this be a reasonable compromise all round?



Important note, FDev have said they will be monitoring this thread, if you think you have a good alternative proposal, or like one of the ones in this thread please do join the discussion.

For an excellent alternative proposal from CMDR_Cosmicspacehead, please go to Post #34.

For a comprehensive breakdown of the problem from Red Anders, please go to post #61.



Edited 24/6/17: Clarified that proposal is only whilst the ship is in danger. Added useful links.

Thats the most Stupid Idea I have read in a while.
No Offense. But so if I get Disconnected due to the Server going Asynchron and thus Disconnecting me in a Squad. I should be banned for that for 1 Hour ?


Get Real.


And no.
Its not an widely accepted Cheat.
Its not a Cheat at all.

Its behavior which goes against the Rules under a certain condition.
Which is that you Circumvent the proper System to do it.

If you just Quit the Game Regular by using the Menu. You dont actually Combat Log.
Combat logging is when you crash the Game and Circumvent the Timer which keeps in the game for some seconds.



So.
No.
This would not be reasonable.
And would be Guaranteed to not only lose the Game Players but also cause a massive Floralstorm.

 

[Siobhan]

Is that a situation where a player is likely to want to CLog?

Dunno, I neither use the one nor perform the other myself...
But it should certainly count as "in danger", given the quantity of salt generated by DCs

 

[CMDR Cosmic Spacehead]

Blasted forums. How do I uncheck the quotes without searching for the posts I checked? Lol

I'm cursed to ever repeat myself and someone else...!


Edit: Yay, I found them. Lol

Fixing combat logging as a preventative measure, you need to figure out why people combat log.

I'd say there are two main groups;
•The sore losers,
•Those who expect a crime and punishment system to aid them.

The former group you will never fix. They will continue to exploit the game no matter what. These are the people who should be, IMHO, punished the harshest.

The latter group would probably stop combat logging if a decent C&P was in place to keep them relatively safe in certain areas.
I can understand why a simple trader CMDR in a high security system being ganked by 4 Meta FDLs would simply log in this situation. There is no escape. It's a hopeless situation for them. It's still wrong to combat log, but there is no in-game support for these CMDRs. No amount of security can help them. In their minds, I'd imagine, they see the game as broken is that respect.

(Now personally, I accept all risks when going in to Open. Should the worst happen, so be it. I usually laugh of all deaths anyway, because 99% of the time it's from my own monumental failures. - if I don't want the risk at that particular moment, I fly in Mobius or solo.)

With all that said, you can't distinguish the two groups, so it's back to punishing Combat Logging after its happened.
Go to page 1.

CMDR Cosmic Spacehead

 

[Robert Maynard]

You are right, but AFAIK the game does not differentiate.

There's the thing though - we don't know if the game differentiates between different causes when showing the "In Danger" indication (although I suspect that it does).

I'd have no objection to the player that lost connection being required to rejoin the same game mode, ideally the same instance, for a period of time (a period that would increase with repeated connection losses in quick succession but would lapse at the end of the specified period if no further losses of connection occurred).

.... all after a karma system has been implemented, of course.

 

[Riverside]

Dunno, I neither use the one nor perform the other myself...
But it should certainly count as "in danger", given the quantity of salt generated by DCs

The challenge I'd like to see addressed is to discourage the behaviour of deliberately disconnecting from the game server while under attack (I'm not adding a PvP caveat here, although others may want to). The game can detect these disconnects, and we are only concerned about times where the game brings up the 'are you sure? you ship is in danger' dialogue box & brings up a 15 sec timer, after which you must confirm. Ending task, or breaking the network connection circumvent this.

The crux of the problem is that it is near impossible to say whether that disconnect is deliberate.

Are you sure you want to add to the list of situations where you see the 15sec timer? It would exacerbate the problem rather than help to pin it down

 

[Ozram]

There's the thing though - we don't know if the game differentiates between different causes when showing the "In Danger" indication (although I suspect that it does).

I'd have no objection to the player that lost connection being required to rejoin the same game mode, ideally the same instance, for a period of time (a period that would increase with repeated connection losses in quick succession but would lapse at the end of the specified period if no further losses of connection occurred).

.... all after a karma system has been implemented, of course.

That seems pretty reasonable. It would work well as it would not punish the accidental disconnects (might make it better if you were in a wing and want to get back to the action as well).

 

[CMDR Cosmic Spacehead]

Partially related.

In MechWarrior Online, if you disconnect during a match, you can not join a new one until that match is over. All you can do is rejoin the original match.
People can also report you for various things, like AFKing, or suicide, if enough people (per match) do it, you're prevented from joining any more matches for a few minutes.

We could get a similar report tool in ED. Although it'd probably be abused and removed again. Lol

 

[Riverside]

There's the thing though - we don't know if the game differentiates between different causes when showing the "In Danger" indication (although I suspect that it does).

I'd have no objection to the player that lost connection being required to rejoin the same game mode, ideally the same instance, for a period of time (a period that would increase with repeated connection losses in quick succession but would lapse at the end of the specified period if no further losses of connection occurred).

.... all after a karma system has been implemented, of course.

Yes semantics aside clearly we agree. If the game could tell the difference between a real risk of the ship being destroyed (genuine potential CLog situations as Red Anders laid out) rather than just being close to a star for example, that would be helpful.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Yes semantics aside clearly we agree. If the game could tell the difference between a real risk of the ship being destroyed (genuine potential CLog situations as Red Anders laid out) rather than just being close to a star for example, that would be helpful.

We don't agree about the proposal to lock the player out of the game though.

 

[Riverside]

Partially related.

In MechWarrior Online, if you disconnect during a match, you can not join a new one until that match is over. All you can do is rejoin the original match.
People can also report you for various things, like AFKing, or suicide, if enough people (per match) do it, you're prevented from joining any more matches for a few minutes.

We could get a similar report tool in ED. Although it'd probably be abused and removed again. Lol

There is already a report player function, whether it is just a placebo or actually has an effect I don't know
If the game were able to only let you rejoin the same instance ID you were in when you left that would work (similar to your idea). If the instance is discarded (because all players you left behind left the instance) you would rejoin as normal in another (or new) instance.

 

[Red Anders]

See, I would completely disagree

Nowhere is it stipulated by FD that Open Play is tantamount to Consensual PvP in an adversarial context. Yes, Open is obviously player-interaction, which is the drawing card of the mode. It is however NOT consent to combat-orientated gameplay.

There is no mechanic in the game to prevent unrestricted combat-orientated gameplay in open, nor is there any rule which says that it is not allowed. You are therefore (whether you like it or not) giving implied consent to it. It's a common enough concept.

Understand, I am not saying that means you 'have' to do it. Implied consent simply means that if someone else chooses to attack you, you have accepted that they have the right to do it. It doesn't mean that you have to stay there and fight them. You don't 'have' to fight another player in the same way as you don't have to mine, or explore, or undertake any other action that you don't want to whilst playing. But the discussion we're having here is about combat logging, so to be honest I can't work out if you're just being deliberately obtuse now or what.

You don't 'have' to mine and you avoid that by not equipping mining gear and going off to mine. You don't 'have' to explore and you avoid that by not equipping scanners and flying around. You don't 'have' to participate in combat and you avoid that in open by fleeing, or with the rules as they are now by logging out via the menu if attacked, lame though that is.

The one and only point I was making is that if your intention is to avoid combat, you only have the right to do so via means that have been deemed legitimate and that does not include making an ungraceful exit because it has very clearly been deemed an exploit by amongst others the game's lead designer.

That said, there is obviously always the chance that that specific aspect of gameplay will be forced on an individual not wanting any part of said gameplay, which in certain instances leads to task-killing......

What you said there is 'Sometimes players will cheat to avoid a situation'. I don't question the unavoidable truth of that statement, that's the whole reason this thread exists. I just think that they should be punished for it.

Which brings us back to the original question: Yes, the rules have been broken. That does however not answer the question as to what the extent of the harm suffered by the 'aggrieved party' was.

Lost his 'easy kill' bragging rights? Boo-hoo.

Any other harm?

The loss isn't in fact 'bragging rights' it's the satisfaction of winning the fight and seeing your enemy explode. The fact that you find this odd in some way does strongly suggest that you're not a regular participant in online gaming outside of Elite Dangerous. Yes, people who enjoy combat-orientated gameplay like to know they have killed their in-game enemies.

Stop trying to derail the thread - this is supposed to be a discussion about potential punishments and mechanics, not your philosophising about player's motivations and whether the chains of game rules bind you. Make a thread if you want to wax lyrical about that, it's one of the reasons that threads like these always turn into slanging matches instead of positive discussions.

 

[Riverside]

We don't agree about the proposal to lock the player out of the game though.

I get that, yes. My original proposal got the discussion going but has proved unpopular because the punishment is felt to be too harsh in the (IMO vanishingly rare) circumstance of an accidental disconnect while the ship is in danger, and not harsh enough a punishment in the events we do want to capture.

I think it would work for me, but I didn't know whether it would work for other players' circumstances, which it why I posted it

This thread was then linked to by Dale & Yaffle, so it's intent has changed somewhat. I updated the OP to reflect this.

 

[Arguendo]

That said, there is obviously always the chance that that specific aspect of gameplay will be forced on an individual not wanting any part of said gameplay, which in certain instances leads to task-killing......

Supported by FD does not equate to consent thereto by a player, especially considering the absolute absence of any type of meaningful crime and consequence system......

...Even then things are not quite cut-and-dried, as we then have to confront the other fact that, at present, Open Play is a mess, making any attempt by FD at addressing the issue, as said, patently hypocritical.

As I mentioned previously, the moment FD sorts their house out and addresses the patent shortcomings in the Elite Dangerous Universe is the moment you see task-killing drop by 80%, if not more.

Once that gets done, one can step back and objectively ascertain how to best deal with the 20% remainder.

Good Lord how many times must I repeat that I agree that it is against the rules.

Do you just not read my posts? I am honestly flabbergasted as to how you might think from my posts that I am of the opinion that task-killing is not a cheat/exploit and against the rules.......

From all your posts on this matter I can only come to the conclusion that you either exit the game when facing danger in Open, or you are being deliberately obtuse like Red Anders also said.

Your whole argument is based on FDev needing to "fix" Open before Combatlogging should be addressed. Therein lies your biggest problem. Just because you believe a mode is "broken" doesn't give you the right to break the TOS, and thereby the rules of the game. Accept the rules laid out and then decide what mode you are willing to accept with those rules in place and the current state of the game.

The punishment should also reflect this, like others and myself have suggested; if you combatlog because you're attacked by another player you have shown that you do not accept the multiplayer aspect of the game, and as such you are confined to the single player mode (aka Shadowbanned, which is Solo without being able to affect the BGS).
It's quite easy, and there doesn't need to be an evaluation of what one player or the other "lost" by combatlogging. Regardless of loss, the player combatlogging clearly shows they have no intention of playing by the in- and out-of-game rules of the Multiplayer aspect, and as such is not allowed to remain in it. Truesilver's post explains this "immortal" part in detail, and he even gives you bulletpoints for the "loss" you have been requesting.

TL;DR: If you can't accept the current C&P in place, don't push the Open button and then combatlog when attacked. Stay in Solo or a PvE Private Group until the C&P is at a level you can accept.

What you said there is 'Sometimes players will cheat to avoid a situation'. I don't question the unavoidable truth of that statement, that's the whole reason this thread exists. I just think that they should be punished for it.

Quoted because...

 

[EddyRockSteady]

The loss isn't in fact 'bragging rights' it's the satisfaction of winning the fight and seeing your enemy explode....

Player A gets banned due to the fact that Player B is denied satisfaction?

Cry me a river.

Loss of a ship is no prerequisite to winning a fight.

If this is the best justification anyone can come up with that would warrant a ban or the like, well then, what more can one say lol

Stop trying to derail the thread - this is supposed to be a discussion about potential punishments and mechanics, not your philosophising about player's motivations and whether the chains of game rules bind you. Make a thread if you want to wax lyrical about that, it's one of the reasons that threads like these always turn into slanging matches instead of positive discussions.

If you took the time to actually read and more importantly, comprehend my posts, you would not have made this statement. Ignorance is indeed bliss. Do yourself a favour and read them again prior to attempting to tell me what to do on a public forum.