Combat Logging Punishment Proposal

[Arguendo]

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

Remember the CZ disconnects that were prevalent in the game? It's not that long ago. With this system in place, going to a CZ would have been gaming suicide at that time. You would spend a lot more time out of game than in it, trying to complete your massacre missions. That particular disconnection bug is gone, but with FDev's history I wouldn't be surprised if it, or something like it re-appeared in the game after a major update. Old bugs have a canny ability to resurface in new updates in this game

 

[CMDR Cosmic Spacehead]

Bickering! Bickering everywhere!

And the forum war resumes. It was nice while it lasted.

Regardless of what *you* think of illegal combat logging, FD have stated it's against the rules. Nuff' said.

Now, let's get back to praising my idea from way back on page 3, shall we?

CMDR Cosmic Spacehead

 

[EddyRockSteady]

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...

For the record and to avoid any further misunderstanding, your conclusion is wrong

As for the rest of your comments, well, you know what they say about opinions.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Regardless of what *you* think of illegal combat logging, FD have stated it's against the rules. Nuff' said.

Indeed they have - just as they have indicated that it is very difficult (for them) to identify, without doubt, whether an ungraceful exit was deliberate or not.

 

[CMDR Cosmic Spacehead]

Indeed they have - just as they have indicated that it is very difficult (for them) to identify, without doubt, whether an ungraceful exit was deliberate or not.

And we're back to my idea again.

Do I need to re-quote it? I feel like people are missing out. Lol

Edit: I wonder if it's still in my clipboard...

Spoiler

So, I just looked through 10 pages of history and i can't find my CLogging Fix.

So I'm typing it, again. (This is probably why I can never find it, it's not one of my threads... Lol)

A tagging system.
When you enter any form of danger (anything that requires the 15 second timer to legally exit the game), a "tag" is placed on your save, which contains some information.
When you leave danger, the tag is removed. You'd be none the wiser.

If you illegally combat log, or have a CTD, server error, etc, while in danger, the tag would not be removed.

This tag is then read when loading the game, and using the information it stored, will only allow you to re-enter your previous mode for a limited time.

I particularly like this idea, because if you're just going about your business and suffer a server failure or CTD while in danger, you simply reload the game and continue as normal, in your previous mode, which we all do anyway.

But if you're intentionally combat logging in PvP, your only options are to rejoin the same mode, where your opponent may be waiting. Or don't play at all.

No one is ever barred entirely from the game, and accidental disconnects are not punished.

CMDR Cosmic Spacehead



Give it a few weeks, and I'll be looking for this post again.

It is!

 

[Perseus]

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

Forgive my ignorance but could you expand upon this further?
I assume you mean evasion of a combat action due to waking out of danger. Am I correct in this?
Also, I'd be very interested to read your definitions of harm in or to the game. How do you quantify it?

 

[Arguendo]

For the record and to avoid any further misunderstanding, your conclusion is wrong

I've been wrong before, no biggie.

As for the rest of your comments, well, you know what they say about opinions.

Speaking of which; what is yours? The only "opinion" I've seen you bring forth is the acceptance that Combatlogging (ie. taskkilling) is against the rules. Other than that you have limited yourself to asking for elaborate explanations from others, or diverting the attention to the current state of the C&P in the game.

Do you have an opinion on what punishment is appropriate for someone breaking the TOS, which you have acknowledged that it is? Or does Truesilver need to explain the "loss factor" again?

 

[Arguendo]

And we're back to my idea again.

Do I need to re-quote it? I feel like people are missing out. Lol

I like it, but I feel it lacking considering combatlogging is breaking the TOS. As an immediate response it is good, but there needs to be consequences beyond that after the fact imho.
With the current game, who's to say the "relogging" puts you in the same instance as the guy who just shot at you? Talk to anyone participating in the PvP League this year what a pain it was to get people instanced, even when in complete wings. There was almost always someone who didn't see someone else, and there was much relogging and re-instancing

 

[CMDR Cosmic Spacehead]

I like it, but I feel it lacking considering combatlogging is breaking the TOS. As an immediate response it is good, but there needs to be consequences beyond that after the fact imho.
With the current game, who's to say the "relogging" puts you in the same instance as the guy who just shot at you? Talk to anyone participating in the PvP League this year what a pain it was to get people instanced, even when in complete wings. There was almost always someone who didn't see someone else, and there was much relogging and re-instancing

Yeah, it's not really a punishment, more or a deterrent.
I've said a few posts later, that the karma system could play a part, and anyone regularly leaving combat illegally can face harsher punishment over time.
But for the sake of false positives, my suggestion is pretty good at not punishing those who genuinely have the odd network or CTD issue.

As to what those punishments could be for regular offenders, that's up to FD.
Personally, I'd be a bit sadistic.
Regular loggers would start seeing their income reduced, or shield and armour resistances/HP reduced over time the more the offend.
Combined with shadowban of course.

CMDR Cosmic Spacehead

 

[EddyRockSteady]

Do you have an opinion on what punishment is appropriate for someone breaking the TOS...

To quote myself:

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....

 

[Arguendo]

To quote myself:

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....

And to quote myself:

Your whole argument is based on FDev needing to "fix" Open before Combatlogging should be addressed.

Guess it wasn't just my opinion after all. I actually got it right. Imagine that.

 

[Red Anders]

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

Yeah, see despite what you said, you're still struggling with the whole 'rules' concept aren't you. Can you internalise the fact that your opinion as to what a player does or doesn't get out of defeating another is utterly irrelevant as far as the rules are concerned? There is no value judgement applied to the rules, least of all yours. They police action, not motivation.

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.

The fact that I'm far from the only one who seemed to have difficulty in interpreting your comments does suggest that you could perhaps have expressed yourself more clearly.

As for your last line, do you suffer from oppositional defiant disorder? This is a public forum yes and forum ettiquette includes discussing the topic and only the topic in any given thread. Perhaps a mod would confirm that when they drop by, although I'm sure you'll just see that as another example of the man trying to keep a playa down.

The topic of this thread, as set out by the thread-starter, is not discussing the validity or otherwise of the reason that any given player may or may not want to attack another player. I don't recall any shortage of threads on the forums discussing that topic but this is not one of them.

 

[EddyRockSteady]

Guess it wasn't just my opinion after all. I actually got it right. Imagine that.

Obviously.

I said it often enough. Cannot imagine why you would not get it right.

Differing opinions are OK. You are happy with the current state of the game and that's OK.

I am not.

Fact remains is that by addressing the current state of the game, the problem of task-killing will also largely be addressed as a matter of course.....

Why settle for solving one problem when two can be addressed at the same time?

 

[Robert Maynard]

In the Lavecon twitch stream, Sandro mentioned two features that are coming for 2.4:

1. NO MORE SUICIDEWINDER! Not 100% clear on this but seems to be, the rebuy of most expensive ship used during the "crime spree" is added to your rebuy
2. Pilot's Federation Bounty. Attack a ship with a Pilot's Federation pilot, gain a Pilots Federation bounty. A PR bounty is valid everywhere (except anarchies)

It sounds like these will be the first steps with regard to changes to C&P and the introduction of a karma system....

.... (a karma system that would probably also impose consequences on players for Combat Logging)

 

[znôrt]

That's just it:

How does it affect others? What is the loss/damage sustained that is so great that it deserves the punishment of a ban or the like?

I have seldom, if ever, heard this question answered satisfactorily.

i'll try, it's saturday after all!
first let's examine the loss, then see if a ban is appropriate or not:

for one there's 'loss of rightful revenue' for bounty hunters, pirates, and cmdrs engaging in powerplay and combat zones, if combat logging results in a reward earned being denied. (yes the media business has abused and twisted this argument to hell and back but in our case this is actually quantifiable and justified).

the other loss is that of gameplay. for many players the fact that it's a dangerous universe is part of the appeal. not surprisingly, since this is as advertised. this means that if i kit out my ship and decide to venture into the open black a big part of the motivation is that it's risky, and the whole point is to manage that risk and live up to it. and no doubt there will be destruction. if you ever do so you will have a big time until you hit a situation where another player's action renders the whole thing moot.

what's it to me? probably nothing, but this second type of loss is both more subtle and far reaching as it shapes the community. the advertised 'dangerous galaxy' doesn't even exist, nobody take's it seriously. a thriving world of cooperation and conflict becomes a mass individual grindfest. and griefer's paradise! heavy loss if you ask me.

should this be banable? definitely not if the network is as shaky as bugs and user experiences suggest. to me it seems like combat log is just the tip of the iceberg and there's no way to approach this except from a wider perspective and with considerable rework. frontier are aware and thus only target repeated and reported offenders, that's just damage control and the best they can do for now.

i doubt this gets ever done but once you have a reliable system you could start demanding some minimal compromise from your users, and this allows for quite unique experiences many players seek and enjoy. many games do that. which of course might be not your taste but nevertheless, it's not an unreasonable expectation if you look at frontiers offer.

 

[CMDR Cosmic Spacehead]

In the Lavecon twitch stream, Sandro mentioned two features that are coming for 2.4:


Pilot's Federation Bounty. Attack a ship with a Pilot's Federation pilot, gain a Pilots Federation bounty. A PR bounty is valid everywhere (except anarchies)

<Snip>

That sound familiar...

Another idea I've suggested probably 10 times. Quite a popular one though that others have also suggested, I doubt I was the first.

Once C&P is working effectively, I'd imagine you'd see a lot less of the "victim" combat loggers.

But probably more of the "sore losers" combat loggers.

CMDR Cosmic Spacehead

 

[Truesilver]

Sandro's LaveCon announcements sound good, although I do hope that the Pilots Federation bounty thing does not apply between two pledged Powerplayers (assuming not of same faction or superpower).

Powerplay needs all the help it can get and diverting guys away from indiscriminate attacks towards Powerplay is like a PvP-Flag thing, that could work really well.

A part of that would be not to penalise Powerplay attacks (hence to encourage those who wish to attack Clean Cmdrs to do it within the context of Powerplay).

Not only would this work well as gameplay, it is also very explicable in terms of lore/RP. It is reasonable to suppose that the Powers would forbid their agents from reporting their clandestine warfare to the Pilots Federation, or would use their influence to suppress such reports, just as IRL one presumes that nation's secret agents do not regularly call the police.

 

[Vorxian]

Ok seriously playing devils advocate here... don't pelt me all at once...

FDEV is caught between a rock and a hard place here.

What if... a player suspects that they WILL combat log tonight. They log in, a couple of mins later they pull the internet plug. Log back in.. 10 / 15 mins later they pull the plug. 10 mins after they pull the plug. 15 mins after that they pull the plug. 25 mins after that they pull the plug (each time NOT in combat). For aesthetics do it one last time after another 25 / 30 mins or so. This fills the players 'logs' up with ungraceful exits, and since they're not in combat.. There's no way to know if it's simply a network outage or, internet fault.

THEN the player gets in combat... combat logs. HOW is anyone going to prove this is a deliberate and ungraceful exit to avoid loss of assets? If reported.. the clogger simply says.... man my internet has been a piece of *@&$ all evening. FDEV cannot prove otherwise.

If someone just combat logs during combat, they'll stand out like a vindaloo fart in a lift.

Food for thought.

 

[Earth Ultimatum IV.]

It should be like CS:GO's ban system.

One disconnect is fine.
Second one is a 15 minute lock to solo.
Third one is a day, fourth one a week, fifth one a month, etc etc.

 

[Vorxian]

It should be like CS:GO's ban system.

One disconnect is fine.
Second one is a 15 minute lock to solo.
Third one is a day, fourth one a week, fifth one a month, etc etc.

Brutal if someone is having genuine internet issues.....