Combat Logging Punishment Proposal

[Asp Explorer]

I'm sure you're right. Nevertheless the trend would be captured & this doesn't seem to be a reason not to implement what we have. As a potential issue, it currently exists & would continue to exist in any peer to peer system.

I'm sure the trend would be visible, but would it be meaningful? Basic Elite accounts used to be available discounted on Steam for, what was it, $5 or so? Many people bought loads of them. Tactical useage of rarely played accounts combined with VPN and host anonymisers could make that trend take a long time to appear.

You are not wrong - the statistics will always appear eventually - but those people determined to be lulzbunnies, will always find ways to be lulzbunnies.

 

[CMDR_Elver]

Surely we can think of something a little more engaging for PvP than CMDRs just putting flags up asking for a fight? Surely the game can offer/orchestrate actual combat scenarios as part of Powerplay, missions in specific systems, or indeed new OPEN only dedicated CGs? So signing up for these immediately means you are taking part (most likely) in legal PvP...

These improved combat scenarios can then be used for PvE across the board too! And God forbid, actually make the Thargoid gameplay more involved?

Yes agreed the game should be providing all of the above (although not sure about an extra CG open!). The dueling suggestion should sit along side that so players that have another mechanism for adhoc consensual PvP.

 

[Riverside]

There has been renewed interest in reducing the impact of CLogging on the game recently, rather than start a new thread I'd like to bring this back to the fore.

FDev said they would review this thread (see link in the OP), although no feedback has yet been provided.

 

[Omega Fighter]

Before any punishment FD must have a 99+% accurate detection system, was it something that player cant effect on or it was a deliberate so called "combat log".

 

[Riverside]

Before any punishment FD must have a 99+% accurate detection system, was it something that player cant effect on or it was a deliberate so called "combat log".

There is a proposal in post #267 and further thoughts in #268 that should address you concern.

I agree that no punishment can be applied without evidence of intent. The proposed karma system should hopefully be able to provide that.

 

[Kenneth McGrew]

you're all wrong they should be made to chop a tree down with a herring, anyone failing will have their save reset, its so simple but effective.

 

[Riverside]

you're all wrong they should be made to chop a tree down with a herring, anyone failing will have their save reset, its so simple but effective.

How would you identify who to give an axe to?

I don't think having your save reset by a dodgy connection would be all that popular

 

[Asp Explorer]

How would you identify who to give an axe to?

I don't think having your save reset by a dodgy connection would be all that popular

Not to mention that would be weaponised by unscrupulous lulzbunnies at the earliest opportunity

 

[CMDR Cosmic Spacehead]

Woot. We're back!

Any sign from FD?

I'd love to know if my solution is even viable...

CMDR Cosmic Spacehead

 

[Riverside]

Woot. We're back!

Any sign from FD?

I'd love to know if my solution is even viable...

CMDR Cosmic Spacehead

I think we all would

 

[RexKraemer]

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 thinkable, that FDev has already implemented this kind of counter action against CL without telling anybody for obvious reason.

If this was the case, would it change the interpretation of the SDC experiment?

Like: the threshold was not triggered by the experiment?

(Don't discuss it here please)

Anyhow, I rep you because of this proposal. Riversides is good too: I would like it if the time of ban would double each time, starting with neglectable 5 minutes, 10minutes, 20minutes, ...
But it needs the tagging anyways so that FDev has some proof in the case, people complain at the support.

So "tagging" is first, ban second in priority if implementing it.

 

[zegram33]

Honestly if if HAS to be a deal I like cosmicspaceheads proposal: its not cripplingly annoying for people who just forget which mode they are in whilst trading and want to bolt mid interdiction, but it still allows for countering to "proper" pvp combat logging.
may I suggest when returning, if this safeguard has been triggered, it reboots your ship/shields as you load in?
that way in straight solo bounty hunting it lets people Clog if they fancy, but it prevents players from Clogging in large Hazrez or combat zone fights from doing it to break lock?
alternatively, what if CL caused a penalty to ships durability (the stat fixed under advanced maintenance) This way it also has a direct downside but its fairly minimal unless you KEEP doing it.
only concern is that might make larger (more expensive) ships very pricey to fly for a person with poorer internet

that being said its not something I'd put as a priority over new content, and I think the "combat career path" is the one that LEAST needs new mechanics/overhauls, id rather they really get stuck in to exploration personally

 

[Riverside]

Honestly if if HAS to be a deal I like cosmicspaceheads proposal: its not cripplingly annoying for people who just forget which mode they are in whilst trading and want to bolt mid interdiction, but it still allows for countering to "proper" pvp combat logging.
may I suggest when returning, if this safeguard has been triggered, it reboots your ship/shields as you load in?
that way in straight solo bounty hunting it lets people Clog if they fancy, but it prevents players from Clogging in large Hazrez or combat zone fights from doing it to break lock?
alternatively, what if CL caused a penalty to ships durability (the stat fixed under advanced maintenance) This way it also has a direct downside but its fairly minimal unless you KEEP doing it.
only concern is that might make larger (more expensive) ships very pricey to fly for a person with poorer internet

that being said its not something I'd put as a priority over new content, and I think the "combat career path" is the one that LEAST needs new mechanics/overhauls, id rather they really get stuck in to exploration personally

As you say, any change applied would need to be one that doesn't significantly disadvantage the genuine game crash or connection loss. Any damage to the ship requiring repair would frustrate an explorer for example. I spent most of last year on a grand tour of the galaxy, unable to repair hull damage. However hull integrity was at zero after the first few days away so reducing that to zero (leaving the hull with 30% fewer hitpoints) would be fine I think. Except the cost, as you say.

So on balance while I'd be okay with it I'm a rich triple-elite type & it would be unreasonable to expect all players to accept this, or even a significant majority. I don't think any penalty that cost money can be applied.

However one that only costs time could be okay, and re-booting the ship would fit.

The genuine CLogger has a very visible deterrent, knowing that when they return their shields will be down & they will be unable to move or charge FSD for a short while (I don't know off the top of my head how log a re-boot takes, or if it is a variable time depending on loadout - anyone?).

The non-deliberate disconnect returns to their instance, ship re-boots & they are on their way.

Note that all these potential criteria only apply when the ship is in danger, they would be returning to an instance where the ship may still be in danger (eg in a RES with cargo in their hold) so while I'd give it a thumbs up personally I can see it might be more difficult for some players to accept this over just returning to their original instance and mode in the state they left it.

 

[[Diplomacy] Carnegie]

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.

How does this fix combat logging?

You're adding a minor disincentive which is negated by going off and fixing yourself a cup of tea and a couple of biscuits, while you wait for whoever you CL'd on to get bored and wander off.

Compared to multi-million dollar loss of ship, cargo/passengers, exploration data/bounty/combat vouchers/etc a minor timeout means nothing.

Edit:
Also, if you block the person you've just CL"d on, doesn't that pretty much guarantee you won't appear back in the same instance?

 

[Serin Vickers]

There are likely many issues with most of these proposals due to the peer2peer networking the game utilizes for the multiplayer experience.

Frontier has for security reasons and to prevent abuse not disclosed how exactly two (or more) game clients do their calculations and which one decides if movement or damage calculations are valid or not. To prevent easy hacks like teleport hacking or one-shotting other ships with damage hacks there has to be a safeguard or verification process going on but I doubt it's server-side because then we'd essentially have dedicated servers already and p2p would not be necessary.

With this in mind the only change that doesn't cause too much of a mess would be increasing the logout timer but what I do not know is if player A logs off by terminating the client instead of waiting for the countdown and player B still shoots at him if this damage then propagates to the server, essentially allowing player B to update the other players' ship's HP state without the client of player A doing any verification or providing information to aid in it.
This could be tested of course but even then there are multiple other client-server architecture related questions that make any design change a problem.

Point being, it would be much easier to suggest new mechanics here if Elite Dangerous' multiplayer component truly ran on dedicated servers without any peer2peer connections being necessary. At this point I presume we're pretty much taking stabs at the dark.

 

[Riverside]

How does this fix combat logging?

You're adding a minor disincentive which is negated by going off and fixing yourself a cup of tea and a couple of biscuits, while you wait for whoever you CL'd on to get bored and wander off.

Compared to multi-million dollar loss of ship, cargo/passengers, exploration data/bounty/combat vouchers/etc a minor timeout means nothing.

Edit:
Also, if you block the person you've just CL"d on, doesn't that pretty much guarantee you won't appear back in the same instance?

The proposal discourages CLogging. It's not a thing that can be prevented by the game, only discouraged or punished. It cannot be unduly punished because of false positives.

If the CLogger stays out of the game the actions of the CLogger (killing newbs, blockade running etc) are negated - the sealclubber is 'policed' out of the system, the blockade held. Similarly use of the blacklist keeps aggressor & victim apart. The blacklist can be used independently of this proposal but you need to be in your ship to access the recent contacts list IIRC (not sure on this).

There is a summary in post #267 and further thoughts in #268 that should address you concerns.

 

[Riverside]

There are likely many issues with most of these proposals due to the peer2peer networking the game utilizes for the multiplayer experience.

Frontier has for security reasons and to prevent abuse not disclosed how exactly two (or more) game clients do their calculations and which one decides if movement or damage calculations are valid or not. To prevent easy hacks like teleport hacking or one-shotting other ships with damage hacks there has to be a safeguard or verification process going on but I doubt it's server-side because then we'd essentially have dedicated servers already and p2p would not be necessary.

With this in mind the only change that doesn't cause too much of a mess would be increasing the logout timer but what I do not know is if player A logs off by terminating the client instead of waiting for the countdown and player B still shoots at him if this damage then propagates to the server, essentially allowing player B to update the other players' ship's HP state without the client of player A doing any verification or providing information to aid in it.
This could be tested of course but even then there are multiple other client-server architecture related questions that make any design change a problem.

Point being, it would be much easier to suggest new mechanics here if Elite Dangerous' multiplayer component truly ran on dedicated servers without any peer2peer connections being necessary. At this point I presume we're pretty much taking stabs at the dark.

Yes, a lot of these issues exist because ED uses peer to peer rather than dedicated servers to host instances.

Increasing the logout timer is possible if the player doesn't have to wait until the end to confirm they want to exit the game, as suggested by Stigbob in post #29. I propose it be changed to 30secs in #268.

 

[Armour]

I suggested something similar a while back.

There should be (if there already isn't) a health score associated with each account, used by matchmaking servers to decide which instance to place each peer into.

Damage would be sustained through packet loss, high latency, and dropped connections.

The instancing would be banded, so healthy peers would be allowed to roam free. Less healthy peers would be in "hospital" instances with one another. Very sick accounts would be "quarantined" in solo.

The account would heal proportionally over time, so an account with temporary connection issues would be healthy again after a few minutes, but one with a history of constant network issues could take weeks to recover fully. An account with a repeated pattern of very poor health might "die" at some point, and end up haunting the shadow banned galaxy.

The damage could have modifiers based on timing. Issues whilst in normal space with other peers? Higher damage. Issues whilst in supercruise, or alone? Lower damage.

Given that the game relies on all peers to have reliable connectivity to ensure a good experience for all players, this seems quite a fair system. It's not based on deterring combat loggers specifically, but it would have obvious implications for them.

 

[[Diplomacy] Carnegie]

The proposal discourages CLogging. It's not a thing that can be prevented by the game, only discouraged or punished. It cannot be unduly punished because of false positives.

If the CLogger stays out of the game the actions of the CLogger (killing newbs, blockade running etc) are negated - the sealclubber is 'policed' out of the system, the blockade held. Similarly use of the blacklist keeps aggressor & victim apart. The blacklist can be used independently of this proposal but you need to be in your ship to access the recent contacts list IIRC (not sure on this).

There is a summary in post #267 and further thoughts in #268 that should address you concerns.

I still don't see how this would change any behavior.

Being forced to return to the same mode you CL'd in is only a problem if there is someone waiting for you, which means that you're reliant on other players to police it.

The CLogger will go do something else and the victim sits around for 15 minutes waiting for them to come back, thereby losing to the CL TWICE!

 

[Riverside]

I still don't see how this would change any behavior.

Being forced to return to the same mode you CL'd in is only a problem if there is someone waiting for you, which means that you're reliant on other players to police it.

The CLogger will go do something else and the victim sits around for 15 minutes waiting for them to come back, thereby losing to the CL TWICE!

If the CLogger doesn't immediately return, their in-game goal is not achieved, and cannot be until they return. If the player remaining in-game chooses to wait there would be something to wait for where currently there is not (currently the CLogger could drop to solo, move position & return to open to avoid their attacker for example). The proposal results in a better situation than we have now and reduces the number of occasions where the habitual CLogger sees more advantage to leaving the game than seeing out the scenario they are in.

Picture an organised 1 on 1 PvP fight with a friend, you are having fun but one of you loses the connection (ie not a deliberate CLog). You immediately return, generally explain what happened, apologise & carry on where you left off. It was frustrating to lose the connection, and you want to just get back to what you were doing. The proposal removes your choice to change mode, but you didn't want to anyway so no problem.

In a second scenario, someone wants to prevent you from delivering goods to a CG, you are doing it in open (or a group that allows PvP) because you think it'll be fun, but you need a plan to successfully get you past the blockade. Your objective is to deliver as many units of cargo as possible in, say an hour.
Mostly you hope to just not get caught, but you need a high wake destination plotted, you need enough defence to survive if you do get caught (and so less room for cargo), you are trading off time per run for success. carry loads of cargo & if you get caught you lose everything on that run, but you don't have to do as many runs to meet your target, or play to survive, each run takes longer & delivers less stuff per run. This is all tactical gameplay. The habitual CLogger doesn't need to worry about any of the nuances of this, if they are caught they CLog, switch to solo (where they probably should have started if they didn't want to risk their ship) & just carry on, but now they have spoiled another players fun. The proposal means they are more likely to either do the whole run in solo, or risk reducing their units per hour stat by having to wait out of game until they think they are safe to return.


So the Proposal makes the habitual CLogger think more carefully about how they want to interact with others, and hopefully fewer players get annoyed. The CLogger doesn't get annoyed by all these pesky other players, the blockaders have a good time with the traders they do catch, everyone is happy, no-one gets quite so annoyed.

I hope this makes more sense. In this thread are several examples like the one I just described, it's worth reading through the whole thing if you get the chance.