Yeah, those are matches. If pvp were setup in matches like chess or Starcraft etc, with rankings, ladders and tournaments, I'd be right there with you.
Combat Logging Punishment Proposal
Yeah, those are matches. If pvp were setup in matches like chess or Starcraft etc, with rankings, ladders and tournaments, I'd be right there with you.
Stroppy internet. It can be tiresome sometimes. Nice way to thicken the skin though.
Thanks, I admit that reply was a bit jarring.
I have seen the term peer to peer on this forum before but to be frank I haven't played many online games and don't do computer programming or anything (I did a little Visual Basic in the 90s...) so I am still not understanding it really. I looked it up just now and it seems as though it means there is no server running the game, and essentially all the individual computers are doing it? I assume this means that it isn't somehow not possible to remain in the game if you lose connection because without a server there is nothing to keep "you" present in the game since there is no server maintaining your presence. If anyone could confirm or correct this it would be appreciated - despite the hostile reply I am still curious - when you log in to the game it says connecting to server so that is confusing, and to be honest how a server works confuses me also so yeeeaahhhhh...
Last edited:
I am as ignorant as you. Apparently it's a big part of the connectivity problem. That's about as far as I've understood it.
That would Fix 2 big Problems at least.
One being the "My Friends Kill me in a Sidewinder to Cash the Bounty with me not really losing anything"
And the other being that People are no longer Wanted if they just Change the System.
leaving only the last Problem. Which is that a Bounty of a laughable 5k for Murder is a Joke.
Especially when attacking a Ship where alone the Rebuy is 3 Millions...
Why not leave an NPC in their stead that matches their combat rank? We already have something similar with NPC multi-crew, so couldn't we just have an NPC control their ship for about 5 minutes so that they're discouraged from actively CLogging in PVP. Once the 5 minutes are over, the NPC craft will despawn by "high-waking" (use the Frame shift animation and charge-up to despawn, but the craft remains in system having never actually left). While I set 5 minutes as the time limit, this is utterly arbitrary.
The life of an 'instance' in ED (as I understand it):
When you log on to the main menu, you are connected to a matchmaking server, when you choose Open, Group or Solo to enter the game the matchmaking server will try to put you in an existing instance hosted by another player if possible, subject to the mode (open/group/solo). If you choose solo of course no match will ever be found, it will always create a new instance, as it will in the other modes if no suitable instance is found.
Let's say there are two players in an instance. One arrives first, no-one else is already there so a new instance is created, the first player is obviously hosting it.
Second player arrives, and joins the instance hosted by the first.
First player leaves the instance, second player's PC takes over that instance and control of any NPCs etc, the instance remains until there are no players left, then the instance is destroyed.
So it is possible to wait for your CLogging 'friend' to log back in, using the same choice (open/group) as before, and they will re-appear in your instance. CMDR_Cosmicspacehead's idea in Post #34 works by only allowing the CLogger to rejoin the game in the same instance they left behind (assuming it is still there).
When you log on to the main menu, you are connected to a matchmaking server, when you choose Open, Group or Solo to enter the game the matchmaking server will try to put you in an existing instance hosted by another player if possible, subject to the mode (open/group/solo). If you choose solo of course no match will ever be found, it will always create a new instance, as it will in the other modes if no suitable instance is found.
Let's say there are two players in an instance. One arrives first, no-one else is already there so a new instance is created, the first player is obviously hosting it.
Second player arrives, and joins the instance hosted by the first.
First player leaves the instance, second player's PC takes over that instance and control of any NPCs etc, the instance remains until there are no players left, then the instance is destroyed.
So it is possible to wait for your CLogging 'friend' to log back in, using the same choice (open/group) as before, and they will re-appear in your instance. CMDR_Cosmicspacehead's idea in Post #34 works by only allowing the CLogger to rejoin the game in the same instance they left behind (assuming it is still there).
There are Frontier servers which handle things like mission generation, giving and taking assets, outfitting and so on. They provide the local client with the information it needs to generate the game world, and arbitrate how the player interacts with it.
The three-dimensional space you play the game in is handled by the client. It drives NPCs, pushes projectiles around, traces the path of lasers, figures out how physics objects should move etc. And most critically for this topic, receives information about what other players' ships are doing from those players' clients and displays them accordingly.
When two players are instanced together and one loses connection, it would be entirely technically possible to have the remaining client keep the other player's ship in the game world. But that would mean giving the local client the ability to seize control of other players' ships and tell Frontier's servers that they have been destroyed, which is a gigantic security risk.
Last edited:
Last edited:
Ahh, I can see how that can be rather easily abused.
If you could expand on that it might be helpful
Which method you think is flawed & how it could be abused.I missed your substitute NPC idea earlier, it's not a bad concept although I don't know how easy it would be to implement.
tbh
I'd no more want an NPC to fly my Cutter, than I'd want the girlfriend to take my Ninja ZX-10R out for a 'spin'.... [where is it]
How about:
If you are attacked, logging out results in your ship remaining in the instance for 60 seconds...
Combat logging would be solved. People who legitimately disconnect during a fight would be out of luck. But which is the greater evil?
Logging out while not in a fight wouldn't leave your ship in the instance.
If you are attacked, logging out results in your ship remaining in the instance for 60 seconds...
Combat logging would be solved. People who legitimately disconnect during a fight would be out of luck. But which is the greater evil?
Logging out while not in a fight wouldn't leave your ship in the instance.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Frontier have indicated on a few occasions that there is no "infallible arbiter" to take over control of the ship of the disconnected player, therefore there is no acceptable method of keeping a pseudo player ship in the game.
The 15 sec timer could be extended to 60 secs, however I believe that would actually increase combat logging. As an idea having the ship remain (to certain destruction) would (I think) not be easy, with the same net effect as simply guaranteeing the rebuy screen on a forced disconnect.
Guaranteed rebuy is probably ruled out simply by being an unreasonable punishment for those rare instances where the player accidentally disconnects (or the game crashes) while the ship is in danger.
Guaranteed rebuy is probably ruled out simply by being an unreasonable punishment for those rare instances where the player accidentally disconnects (or the game crashes) while the ship is in danger.
Not trying to be that guy but the only people that seem to always complain about combat logging are people that are just going around ganking people. Honestly, why else would you be mad about it? (yes I'm being facetious)
Yes theres a lot of them for nothing more than boredom. I've heard all the excuses about roleplaying and everything else, but the bottom line is as long as the ships cost hundreds of millions people are going to keep doing it. And I know for a fact a bunch of the people here griping about it have also done it themselves.
(I personally dont combat log but I also mostly fly small ships that I dont care about losing. Plus if I really dont want to be bothered I play in solo.)
I really think theres only a couple of real solutions to this and it has to be based on actual in-game systems instead of log out timers.
The best solution to me would be make a CQC for big ships and let people PvP all they want there. Maybe make them instanced versions of conflict zones where winning the match influences the overall politics in the bigger game. Now all the roleplayers are satisfied and so are the pvpers.
Maybe instead of rebuy costs you have to actually put up some sort of combat zone insurance deposit that you get refunded after the match with a +/- bonus for winning or losing?
Just my two cents.
TLDR - People want to pvp but dont want to pay rebuys when they lose so thats mostly why they log. Solution make a pvp area with no rebuy costs.
Yes theres a lot of them for nothing more than boredom. I've heard all the excuses about roleplaying and everything else, but the bottom line is as long as the ships cost hundreds of millions people are going to keep doing it. And I know for a fact a bunch of the people here griping about it have also done it themselves.
(I personally dont combat log but I also mostly fly small ships that I dont care about losing. Plus if I really dont want to be bothered I play in solo.)
I really think theres only a couple of real solutions to this and it has to be based on actual in-game systems instead of log out timers.
The best solution to me would be make a CQC for big ships and let people PvP all they want there. Maybe make them instanced versions of conflict zones where winning the match influences the overall politics in the bigger game. Now all the roleplayers are satisfied and so are the pvpers.
Maybe instead of rebuy costs you have to actually put up some sort of combat zone insurance deposit that you get refunded after the match with a +/- bonus for winning or losing?
Just my two cents.
TLDR - People want to pvp but dont want to pay rebuys when they lose so thats mostly why they log. Solution make a pvp area with no rebuy costs.
I agree there appears to be some correlation between those that complain the hardest & those that profess to gank, but FDev are looking for workable solutions so whatever the stats clearly they think it is a big enough thing to attempt to discourage.
The concept of a permanent 'fish' beta server is a popular one, I like the idea of a cut-down map of 10 or so systems and a 'Minecraft creative mode' approach to equipment, using existing assets, flight model etc. I agree this 'CQC for big ships' approach would probably be extremely popular with PvP'ers, a subset of which may anecdotally be linked to the CLogging problem, but although it may give one side of the issue a distraction, it does nothing to discourage the CLogging itself.
I'd like to see something like this implemented, but in addition to a Clogging deterrent.
The concept of a permanent 'fish' beta server is a popular one, I like the idea of a cut-down map of 10 or so systems and a 'Minecraft creative mode' approach to equipment, using existing assets, flight model etc. I agree this 'CQC for big ships' approach would probably be extremely popular with PvP'ers, a subset of which may anecdotally be linked to the CLogging problem, but although it may give one side of the issue a distraction, it does nothing to discourage the CLogging itself.
I'd like to see something like this implemented, but in addition to a Clogging deterrent.
Yep. I feel the same. So far for me, in a perfect ED world, I'd go with the following:
1) The fish beta.
Test builds and duke it out to your hearts content.
2) Automated reaction to disconnect.
The player will have to log in to the same mode they were in when they lost connection (for whatever reason) and preferably to the same instance when possible.
3) Manual rout.
When enough evidence is brought against a player to satisfy FDs criteria, shadowbans of increasing length are applied.
My game client crashes too often lately to be slapped with a one hour ban each time - if that is what would happen.
I'd like to see what FDev have mentioned before which is looking at a trend. If for example there is a disconnect when there are other players around, in combat situations then that would count more than if you're exploring out in the black by yourself. If there are repeated incidents then there needs to be a punishment. Personally I think a shadow ban that gets longer the more disconnects would be appropriate. Let all the CLoggers fly with each other.
I'd like to see what FDev have mentioned before which is looking at a trend. If for example there is a disconnect when there are other players around, in combat situations then that would count more than if you're exploring out in the black by yourself. If there are repeated incidents then there needs to be a punishment. Personally I think a shadow ban that gets longer the more disconnects would be appropriate. Let all the CLoggers fly with each other.