Combat Logging Punishment Proposal

[bitstorm]

Lost connection either accidentally or intentionally so long as it was not a menu exit. All it would do is make you log back in through the same mode as you were in when the connection was lost. In that way, it would practically be a qol improvement for those who were accidentally disconnected in a wing etc, a non issue for anyone else and likely a self imposed time out for the intentional logger (if in pvp).

So essentially a non-graceful exit from the game would require relogging into the same mode.

By the "game" meaning the interactive bit! So if for some reason you dropped straight to menu it would apply here also.

I do like that, it's by no means going to fix the problem (honestly, I don't think you can) but it helps.

 

[Ozram]

So essentially a non-graceful exit from the game would require relogging into the same mode.

By the "game" meaning the interactive bit! So if for some reason you dropped straight to menu it would apply here also.

I do like that, it's by no means going to fix the problem but it helps.

Yep. I feel the same. It's a nice move in the right direction.

 

[Perseus]

Seeking to deal with cheating, yes. Using the menu exit is not cheating. There is no timer for Combat Logging.

This thread is about potential consequences for Combat Logging (per Frontier's definition).

I know the exit menu isn't cheating as currently determined by FD. However, I hope the dynamics of this timer are changed, especially in open mode. This would be part of a comprehensive addressing of the problem of combat logging in the game, either actual or perceived by other players.
The current 15 second exit is worse than a half measure for all parties. I have the feeling is was introduced as a half measure (or placeholder) until such time as the game had developed or been developed. I hope we are at that point now.
FD determine what duration a so called graceful exit is but this is also connected to the ungraceful exit. If a reset timer existed in open, there would be less ambiguity about cheating by disappearing from another players instance during combat. I feel this needs to be aired at the same time as discussing Clogging consequences and punishments.
The less margin for error, or ambiguity, in this matter, the better.

 

[Robert Maynard]

I know the exit menu isn't cheating as currently determined by FD.

Indeed.

However, I hope the dynamics of this timer are changed, especially in open mode. This would be part of a comprehensive addressing of the problem of combat logging in the game, either actual or perceived by other players.

Whether the "dynamics" of the timer are changed rather depends on which player Frontier wish to satisfy - the attacker or the player that needs to leave the game - at the moment, the wishes of the player that needs to leave the game would seem to be the priority.

The current 15 second exit is worse than a half measure for all parties. I have the feeling is was introduced as a half measure (or placeholder) until such time as the game had developed or been developed. I hope we are at that point now.

From what Sandro has said, Frontier would seem to be considering increasing such a timer to 30 or 60 seconds.

FD determine what duration a so called graceful exit is but this is also connected to the ungraceful exit. If a reset timer existed in open, there would be less ambiguity about cheating by disappearing from another players instance during combat. I feel this needs to be aired at the same time as discussing Clogging consequences and punishments.
The less margin for error, or ambiguity, in this matter, the better.

If the timer was able to be reset then players could be kept in the game indefinitely by players that chose to do so - that'd be quite a change in stance on Frontier's part given their position on the use of Menu Exit (with or without delay).

 

[Perseus]

If the timer was able to be reset then players could be kept in the game indefinitely by players that chose to do so - that'd be quite a change in stance on Frontier's part given their position on the use of Menu Exit (with or without delay).

A player chooses mode and, regardless, high waking is the best contextual evasion in a player interaction. An instance popping graceful exit has zero depth in game terms.
I disagree about the priority of a player wishing to leave the game. Why have a timer if a priority is there? As a said, the 15 sec timer is a half measure. There is nothing scared about it's length nor substance, nor indeed about having it at all. It's here as a stop gap, to my mind, perhaps as FD decide on a more determined course of action.

 

[Robert Maynard]

A player chooses mode and, regardless, high waking is the best contextual evasion in a player interaction.

Indeed.

An instance popping graceful exit has zero depth in game terms.

Indeed.

I disagree about the priority of a player wishing to leave the game.

Frontier don't share your opinion.

Why have a timer if a priority is there?

The timer is there for all "in danger" cases - of which, I expect, in danger due to other players form the minority.

As a said, the 15 sec timer is a half measure. There is nothing scared about it's length nor substance, nor indeed about having it at all. It's here as a stop gap, to my mind, perhaps as FD decide on a more determined course of action.

In your opinion, other opinions, naturally, vary.

If the game was designed to prioritise PvP then there'd be no menu exit when in danger from another player and, probably, no Solo or Private Groups.

 

[Perseus]

. . Frontier don't share your opinion.

In your opinion, other opinions, naturally, vary.

If the game was designed to prioritise PvP then there'd be no menu exit when in danger from another player and, probably, no Solo or Private Groups.

Can I ask how you've determined that FD have prioritized leaving the game? Maybe a link I've missed or forgotten? It still begs the question of why have a timer at all.
I'm not asserting a prioritization of PvP, don't know what gives you this idea, to be honest. I've consistently mentioned other modes and the fact they exist seems to point that open is the mode where PvP would have a priority, seeing as open is where it's been designed to happen.
As it stands at the moment, Clogging is happening with seemingly little consequences for offenders and the graceful exit is too wishy washy to be effective for either party in an encounter.
I'm happy that opinions vary. I'm also happy that they can change.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Can I ask how you've determined that FD have prioritized leaving the game? Maybe a link I've missed or forgotten? It still begs the question of why have a timer at all.

From Sandro's post that I quoted above:

Hello Commanders!

To clarify: the official stance on exiting the game via the menu, at any point, is that it is legitimate. I suspect at some point we may increase the "in danger" countdown, but for now you just have to wait fifteen seconds.

However, we can't speak for how other Commanders view such actions.

For the record, when we talk about "combat logging" at Frontier, we mean the act of ungracefully exiting the game (either by ALT-F4 type procedures or by cutting the network traffic).

From the above: "exiting the game via the menu, at any point, is that it is legitimate." and "we can't speak for how other Commanders view such actions" - therefore a player may leave the game at any time, regardless of whether other players in the instance want them to. Given some players wishing to engage in PvP with another player will not want the other player to leave the game it follows that, by allowing the target to be able to choose to leave the game (subject to a 15 second delay) at any time, PvP (i.e. the wishes of the other player) is not prioritised by Frontier in that scenario.

I'm not asserting a prioritization of PvP, don't know what gives you this idea, to be honest.

From the proposal of a reset to the exit timer if hit by a player - if the timer was reset then the attacking player would have their gameplay prioritised over the wishes of the departing player.

I've consistently mentioned other modes and the fact they exist seems to point that open is the mode where PvP would have a priority, seeing as open is where it's been designed to happen.

Both multi-player modes offer the possibility of PvP, not just Open. This alone does not imply that PvP is prioritised.

As it stands at the moment, Clogging is happening with seemingly little consequences for offenders and the graceful exit is too wishy washy to be effective for either party in an encounter.

Proving Combat Logging would seem to be the issue for Frontier - there are many reasons why a player may become disconnected. Menu Exit, with the 15-second "in danger" delay, was consciously implemented by Frontier - and they're aware that not all players will agree with them.

I'm happy that opinions vary. I'm also happy that they can change.

Sometimes....

 

[Perseus]

Thanks Robert.
What you've cited doesn't prove game exit has priority, I'm afraid. I'm only seeing your opinion, which is fine.
I don't understand what you mean by saying Both multi-player modes offer the possibility of PvP, not just Open. This alone does not imply that PvP is prioritised. It's the negative aspect, does not, that is throwing me.
A difference between PG PvP groups and Open is the lack of control and certainty in open - the thrill, as I see it personally. I'd like to see this maintained and enhanced, especially by addressing the Clogging and exit countdown aspects. A reset timer does take control away from wanting to leave if things get too spicy (or the postman arrives) but that would be the choice of being in open.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Thanks Robert.

NP.

What you've cited doesn't prove game exit has priority, I'm afraid. I'm only seeing your opinion, which is fine.

My opinion, certainly - as players cannot stop another player choosing to leave the game.

I don't understand what you mean by saying Both multi-player modes offer the possibility of PvP, not just Open. This alone does not imply that PvP is prioritised. It's the negative aspect, does not, that is throwing me.

I was responding to your comment that Open is the mode where PvP is designed to happen - it is designed to happen in both Multi-Player modes. As to the "does not" - PvP is not, in my opinion, prioritised in this game, indeed, it is completely optional, regardless of game mode.

A difference between PG PvP groups and Open is the lack of control and certainty in open - the thrill, as I see it personally. I'd like to see this maintained and enhanced, especially by addressing the Clogging and exit countdown aspects. A reset timer does take control away from wanting to leave if things get too spicy (or the postman arrives) but that would be the choice of being in open.

A resettable timer would probably adversely affect the population of Open - as players would need to resort to self-destruct to leave the game if players could shoot at them at intervals sufficient to reset their exit timer thus stopping them leaving the game when they need to.

 

[Gunnet]

I can understand Frontier and many players wanting to directly stop ungraceful exiting, despite the fact that I personally consider it a symptom of an underlying problem* which would be better handled by fixing the latter. But wanting to prevent people exiting via the menu just smacks of disregard for other players' ability to fit the game around their real-world responsibilities and enjoy playing it the way they want to.

*In case anybody cares, the brief version is that in the game's current state non-consensual PvP very often involves one party receiving all the fun and the other party bearing all the risk. Along with the unfortunate proliferation of players who are motivated by malice towards other people rather than a desire to play the game with them.

 

[CMDR Cosmic Spacehead]

I can understand Frontier and many players wanting to directly stop ungraceful exiting, despite the fact that I personally consider it a symptom of an underlying problem* which would be better handled by fixing the latter. But wanting to prevent people exiting via the menu just smacks of disregard for other players' ability to fit the game around their real-world responsibilities and enjoy playing it the way they want to.

*In case anybody cares, the brief version is that in the game's current state non-consensual PvP very often involves one party receiving all the fun and the other party bearing all the risk. Along with the unfortunate proliferation of players who are motivated by malice towards other people rather than a desire to play the game with them.

I have nothing against anyone using the menu to quit the game.
The only real issue is logging out during an Interdiction to avoid combat, because an Interdiction can take much longer than 15 seconds. Hence why I suggested the danger timer should vary based on the situation.

CMDR Cosmic Spacehead

 

[Riverside]

I have nothing against anyone using the menu to quit the game.
The only real issue is logging out during an Interdiction to avoid combat, because an Interdiction can take much longer than 15 seconds. Hence why I suggested the danger timer should vary based on the situation.

CMDR Cosmic Spacehead

I think that any increase to the 15sec timer would make Clogging more likely. If the player presses escape (or P) to get to the menu, the 15sec counter starts, then they disgracefully disconnect (something I consider to be an extremely unlikely chain of events to happen accidentally) that sequence of events can be flagged & a punishment applied.

If the player does not activate the 15sec timer it is less clear whether it is deliberate or not. Your suggestion covers that scenario well I think.

 

[Truesilver]

The following exchange between this humble Cmdr and the Great Loach of Space Himself indicates (in conjunction with Sandro's contemporaneous remarks about increasing the menu quit timer to 30 or 60 seconds), that Frontier may be happy with:

(a) increasing the menu quit timer as above;

(b) getting tougher on combat logs in the majority of cases via automated data collation and negative karma;

(c) in exceptional cases inflicting 'bespoke' punishments on combat loggers;

(d) making it easier to kill (not just chase away) Wanted / negative Cmdrs.

That seems to me to be a reasonably holistic approach, which would address most of the concerns in this thread: make it easier for PvP-ers to kill those who deserve to be killed, make the game harder on those who regularly disconnect during combat, reserve the possibility of serious action against the account of those who combat log in particularly obvious/egregious circumstances.

Sandro, thank you very much indeed for your continued detailed engagement with us. RL beckons, so just three very quick responses for now:

1. There are some incidents of combat logging when malign intent is so obvious that people are convicted of murder in RL for less. I mean, wannabe interdicts clean Cmdr, gets kicked hard, turns and runs, loses his FSD or Drives, then logs. You do that twice on video and you should be shadow banned.

2. I don't think half of ship cost as rebuy is any real deterrent in PvP. Too easy never to die.

3. I think that there may be room for some form of anti-crime interdictor, i.e. a module that really seriously disrupts the FSD of a high-bounty Cmdr and can only be used by a clean Cmdr (or if winged, the whole wing must be clean). That would deal with the major problem of PvP retribution which is that there is no way to prevent escape.

Hope this is helpful,

Truesilver

Hello Commander Truesilver!

Your comments are always helpful .

1. I think we could safely say that in the event of incontrovertible evidence we could bypass karma for combat logging. Karma would be there to indentify the far more numerous cases where the evidence is missing for whatever reason.

2. As I have stated a little bit higher up, I *think* we can introduce the threat of ship destruction to a higher level than it currently sits at. Your point is clearly still valid though - this is yet another of the challenges (though perhaps some would think that a more powerful authority presence would be a good unto itself).

3. A nice idea, to sit with a few others we are mulling over .

 

[Ozram]

The following exchange between this humble Cmdr and the Great Loach of Space Himself indicates (in conjunction with Sandro's contemporaneous remarks about increasing the menu quit timer to 30 or 60 seconds), that Frontier may be happy with:

(a) increasing the menu quit timer as above;

(b) getting tougher on combat logs in the majority of cases via automated data collation and negative karma;

(c) in exceptional cases inflicting 'bespoke' punishments on combat loggers;

(d) making it easier to kill (not just chase away) Wanted / negative Cmdrs.

That seems to me to be a reasonably holistic approach, which would address most of the concerns in this thread: make it easier for PvP-ers to kill those who deserve to be killed, make the game harder on those who regularly disconnect during combat, reserve the possibility of serious action against the account of those who combat log in particularly obvious/egregious circumstances.

How do you mean by easier to kill?

 

[CMDR Cosmic Spacehead]

How do you mean by easier to kill?

It's actually pretty hard to die in ED.
High waking is always an option, and if you can't mass lock your opponent, then low waking is even easier.

I can imagine a device that can slow or prevent a high wake would more than likely be used against innocent ships, unless somehow being locked to clean ships, which in itself is lore breaking and rather bizarre. Lol

Unless security NPC's are given a special mass lock module, which they use on wanted targets to slow a high wake. But then that has huge implications for PvE...

Hmmmmm...


CMDR Cosmic Spacehead

 

[Ozram]

It's actually pretty hard to die in ED.
High waking is always an option, and if you can't mass lock your opponent, then low waking is even easier.

I can imagine a device that can slow or prevent a high wake would more than likely be used against innocent ships, unless somehow being locked to clean ships, which in itself is lore breaking and rather bizarre. Lol

Unless security NPC's are given a special mass lock module, which they use on wanted targets to slow a high wake. But then that has huge implications for PvE...

Hmmmmm...


CMDR Cosmic Spacehead

Ummm, so equip NPCs with the existing fsd reboot effect on dumbfire missiles?
And yes, they are mainly a gankers tool... though I'm thinking of fitting one on my pirate Viper. Keep target around long enough to drop more cargo.

 

[Riverside]

We are coming back around to the logic of a temporary ban.

I don't think it's necessary to be able to destroy a Cmdr's ship, either for payback or for kicks. Primarily the attackers objective is to prevent their victim (the potential CLogger) from achieving their objective, which they cannot do if they must rejoin in the same instance (because the attacker will be waiting, if not in the instance then in supercruise), or if they are temporarily banned as I described a few posts back.

 

[Truesilver]

How do you mean by easier to kill?

If we assume basic PvP competence in flying and outfitting, it takes between around 10 minutes to 50 minutes to defeat a fully RNGineered combat ship, 1v1. About 20 mins is normal.

Hence it is impossible to kill somebody who knows what they are doing and is outfitted for apex PvP unless they make some truly monumental error. Yuri Grom missiles, wings, none of them make any difference. One of the huge ironies of combat logging is that those PvP-ers who do it tend to reveal their lack of basic competence thereby.

For this reason I was pointing out to Sandro that his proposal of increasing negative rep Cmdr's rebuys up to 50% of ship cost would make no financial difference to any serious PvP-er. I rebuy less than annually, in PvP.

In response Sandro indicated that Frontier were considering ways to make it more easy to actually get a kill on them.

(I should add that, obviously, none of the above applies to less than fully defended RNGineered combat ships. As I never tire of pointing out, one of the effects of 2.1 has been to polarise Time-to-Kill to the most astonishing degrees, with TTK on max-spec combat ships being absurdly long and on many other types of build, absurdly short.)

 

[Robert Maynard]

In response Sandro indicated that Frontier were considering ways to make it more easy to actually get a kill on them.

(I should add that, obviously, none of the above applies to less than fully defended RNGineered combat ships. As I never tire of pointing out, one of the effects of 2.1 has been to polarise Time-to-Kill to the most astonishing degrees, with TTK on max-spec combat ships being absurdly long and on many other types of build, absurdly short.)

In his reply to me in that thread Sandro indicated that Security Vessels might be tasked against a CMDR with an Engineered ship with suitably Engineered ships of their own.