Combat Logging Punishment Proposal

[Riverside]

1 hour ban for any type of disconnect? NO! Had 2 random server errors yesterday. You need to make it FAIR towards all parties.

Here's my proposal.
If you do it in solo or against AI, you should receive no punishment. If you do it in PvP (when in danger from other players) then you should surely receive some sort of punishment.
I like the idea that someone recommended, make it possible for the player to log back into the same server only, so your enemy can just camp it out and wait for you to log back in.

But here's my big idea, how about a combat log bounty? Perhaps you should call it the chicken bounty? If someone logs out in PvP, then you get a global bounty that cannot be paid off, you either have to die or wait 24 hours before it's gone, during that time any and all ships can attack you without getting a wanted level. That includes stations if you get scanned.
This could be made more severe if you keep doing this. For example if you combat log once, you get 1 hour bounty, do it again within 24h and you get 12 hours bounty, do it again and 24h, then 2 days, 5 days, 1 week and perhaps even 1 month and if you still do it, then permanent bounty until you die (with the ship that was first involved in the combat logging).
and that bounty should be active for ALL ships, but can only be removed either when timer runs out or if you die with the ship that first got the combat log bounty on it.

I was gonna suggest that you should be able to pay the bounty to the other player involved, but then people would just exploit this to make player to player payments.

You've put some thought into your idea, and it passes a lot of tests. But how do you differentiate between the accidental & cynical disconnect?

I had just interdicted a clean NPC (mission target), when their wing joined the instance a few seconds later the game ctd'd, bringing up the support dialog box. When I rejoined the game a global bounty would have been a major pain when I was only going to become wanted in that system. The game had crashed earlier under similar circumstances (just created a new instance, that time it crashed when a mission pirate jumped in), under your proposal (if I'd interdicted Cmdrs) I'd have a 24hr bounty. It's early days following a patch, CTDs are going to happen.

This type of issue is why I prefer the mode restricting proposal. All it does is force the miscreant down the path the innocent would take (ie rejoin the mode they left).

 

[Sethioz]

Unfortunately that is a 'deeper' suggestion than almost any other

There is no mechanism to host your ship if you disconnect, adding one would be expensive on resources, potentially requiring fundamental changes to the way the game works. It is a popular suggestion though.

As a programmer and former hacker myself, I can see that clearly you have no idea how internet works lol. ED already has a timeout, just like any computer connected to internet has a timeout between packets, without it ... it would be impossible to have multiplayer.
UDP packets always have timeout, while TCP can wait for response for as long as needed.
UDP is used in games, because UDP allows packet drops (aka lag).

ED is DESIGNED to drop the ship out of action when game client closes, if you would pull your internet out in middle of a PvP battle, your ship would remain there for several seconds (until server deems your connections as "lost" and then ship disappears)
only way to "combat log" instantly is to kill the game client process.

Please do your research about how computers work, before talking complete nonsense.

 

[BigF]

The only properly policable solution may well entail a server structure thats hosted removing the pier to pier type play we have now. But thats gonna cost both FD and then almost certainly would change ED to a sub based ecomomy.

 

[Riverside]

Please do your research about how computers work, before talking complete nonsense.

This is the suggestions section, if you have a suggestion for a workable solution please offer it, if you want the problem to be fixed.

The better described, the better the chance of your voice being heard

 

[Gopherboy]

Is there though?

1. Nobody gets banned for a single occurrence of anything because yeah, my connection drops sometimes. Most people's connections will drop occasionally for a number of reasons.
2. Nobody gets banned for an ungraceful exit whilst just flying around in supercruise, or when jumping in/out - the issue is combat logging.

I would have to accept that one potentially exploitable scenario would have to be exempt, namely connection drops at the point of a successful interdiction. The reason is that I know this is a time when flaky connections can cause genuine problems, same as when trying to drop in on a wingmate. It'sa well-documented problem and a potential nightmare to police.

I don't quite agree to the OG post of instant 1hr ban for any disconnect, as many have said, it'll just frustrate players when random internet connections arise. My Provider can be solid most days but then have a few days where there service is up and down with faults or upgrades, etc. and getting a 1hr game ban from that would be more than frustrating.

I agree more with Red Anders where Fdev can note what situation a disconnect occurred so...

The Suggestion...

Log the number & frequency of combat disconnects in Open Play. After maybe 3 disconnects in a short time during a combat instance, then time-out the account from Open Play for 5-10 minutes. Make only Private & Solo available.
If the account keeps building up more combat disconnects, increase the Open Play time-out lengths. The more disconnects, the longer the time-out.

If a genuine player is having connection issues then it gives them a few retries before receiving any punishment and only the shortest of restrictions, by then they're probably aware of their connection issues and would hopefully have the wisdom to hold off playing or at least engaging in combat until their connection is more stable. (Or move to Private/Solo if just wanting to keep trying)

But, similar to what Anders quoted, if the combat disconnects keep occurring, then probability it's someone deliberately combat logging and then they're just going to increase their own punishment.

Let each logged occurrence expire after maybe 1 week (as example). So if it was a huge & unlikely set of bizarre innocent disconnect events OR the combat logger has got the hint, then they can play again without worries.

Lastly if the log starts to show a particularly large number of combat disconnects, maybe make it flag the account to Fdev for them to send them a polite e-mail that the persons account is being watched. Maybe then they could issue warnings and bans if the account shows continued combat log-outs consistently over time.

 

[IndigoWyrd]

Potential downsides, stuff to consider:

Risk could be mitigated by the CLogger on rejoining with the in-game blacklist, or router/firewall rules to exclude an IP. Not sure anything can be done (or needs to be done) about this but the mode restricting timer/karma is still some punishment. Pointed out by Vorthax in post #79.

Funny thing is, one needed actually interrupt one's connection or task-kill the client, just add a Layer 7 rule at the router level, and poof. Traffic to and from that IP is prohibited, preventing attack from seeing target and target from seeing attacker instantly. It will even look like a combat-log, except both persons are still connected to the same game, at the same time. And the best part? A number of tools are published by the manufacturers of business-class routers specifically for networking engineers that allow them to make these sorts of changes on the fly, including Cisco and Juniper.

The attacker reports their victim, there is an investigation, and behold, said victim never logged out. Lovely thing this P2P model we have.

 

[Riverside]

Funny thing is, one needed actually interrupt one's connection or task-kill the client, just add a Layer 7 rule at the router level, and poof. Traffic to and from that IP is prohibited, preventing attack from seeing target and target from seeing attacker instantly. It will even look like a combat-log, except both persons are still connected to the same game, at the same time. And the best part? A number of tools are published by the manufacturers of business-class routers specifically for networking engineers that allow them to make these sorts of changes on the fly, including Cisco and Juniper.

The attacker reports their victim, there is an investigation, and behold, said victim never logged out. Lovely thing this P2P model we have.

Yes, this has been discussed before. It's outside the scope of this thread, the game cannot reasonably be expected to deal with that kind of activity.

 

[BigF]

Some of those same tools gave rise to the ability to host lan only games modes on the original Xbox over the internet.
That was one cork they couldnt put back in the bottle.

Maybe the real answer is to change the need to Clogg in the first place, remove the requirement and the only Cloggs left will most likely be ISP / bandwidth issues, which can only be fixed by Infrastructure and decent ISPs.

 

[earlyfang]

The easy way better.

1) Ship remains X seconds in space after disconnection. You cant reconnect in any mode in X seconds.

2) Added a new option for Log-out in space: SAFE LOG OUT showing a X seconds countdown. You can stop it and keep playing.

X = estimated time depending on your hull and shield. Big ship? Then long wait. Better dock or land for safe log out kid.

 

[Riverside]

The easy way better.

1) Ship remains X seconds in space after disconnection.

2) Added a new option for Log-out in space: SAFE LOG OUT showing a X seconds countdown. You can stop it and keep playing.

X = estimated time depending on your hull and shield. Big ship? Then long wait. Better dock or land for safe log out kid.

The basic idea of having the ship remain is one that would work, and is used by many other games. It would require a considerable amount of changes to the way networking and instances are implemented in the game. It's a popular suggestion though, and worth taking the time to go back through the thread for explanations from better informed posters that me

 

[Riverside]

Some of those same tools gave rise to the ability to host lan only games modes on the original Xbox over the internet.
That was one cork they couldnt put back in the bottle.

Maybe the real answer is to change the need to Clogg in the first place, remove the requirement and the only Cloggs left will most likely be ISP / bandwidth issues, which can only be fixed by Infrastructure and decent ISPs.

I agree, CLogging can't be prevented, but the benefit of doing so can be removed by restricting any player that ungracefully disconnects while their ship is in danger to rejoin only the mode they left.

For the accidental disconnect (network issues) you would want to go back to the mode you were in, for the CLogger they are forced to return to face their fate.

 

[TigerTen]

Can we please bury this dead horse, already...

 

[Black Rose]

So as I play Elite solo or with a friend in a private session and one of us is disconnected from the server for any reason at all, one or both of us to be barred from logging back in for an hour?

Obviously Fdev needs to set different rule sets for the open servers and for the private and solo sessions.

So, because you choose to play on the open server and are being cheated out of your gank, we all have to suffer?

Great Idea, perhaps Fdev should ban you from the game for more and a few hours, possibly long enough for you to seek professional help!

 

[Riverside]

So as I play Elite solo or with a friend in a private session and one of us is disconnected from the server for any reason at all, one or both of us to be barred from logging back in for an hour?

Obviously Fdev needs to set different rule sets for the open servers and for the private and solo sessions.

So, because you choose to play on the open server and are being cheated out of your gank, we all have to suffer?

Great Idea, perhaps Fdev should ban you from the game for more and a few hours, possibly long enough for you to seek professional help!

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

 

[Riverside]

Can we please bury this dead horse, already...

Fdev said they would be monitoring this thread, so whenever the subject comes up this thread tends to get bumped. If any new ideas or comments come out of those discussions I'll tend to add them here too. Better it's all in one place eh?

 

[CMDR Cosmic Spacehead]

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

Perhaps it's time to update the OP to remove the 1hr ban, Riverside. Lol

You're still getting crapped on for the idea you no longer support.

 

[Riverside]

Perhaps it's time to update the OP to remove the 1hr ban, Riverside. Lol

You're still getting crapped on for the idea you no longer support.

Yeah I left it in to preserve the continuity of the thread, but I really need to depreciate my OP. I've re-arranged it, let me know what you think.

 

[Acenoid]

I don't like "tagging" or similar punishments.
Simply have the NPC take over for 15 seconds after disconnect. The NPC will be at a good rating maybe with specific AI to espace the danger ASAP.

The tagging system would cause the potential pirates or what not just pile up and as soon as the ship is reappearing open fire and finish the player off. A disconnect is a disconnect. There is no need for artificial rules that are fitting in most cases and sometimes not. Rules should be same for all.

end:

 

[[Diplomacy] Carnegie]

Yeah I left it in to preserve the continuity of the thread, but I really need to depreciate my OP. I've re-arranged it, let me know what you think.

It still seems that there is a very simple workaround to your proposed solution:

1. C'log
2. Add Cmdr you just c'logged on to block list
3. Log in and return to the same mode as before, but in a different instance

Please correct me if I'm wrong.

 

[Acenoid]

So what do you think about the ideas in this thread? Are there any that would motivate you to stay in the game & deal with whatever danger you face than quit? Not doing it to avoid another player is considerate, but as I'm sure you are aware the potential for earning cash is enormous, even after the recent culls.

I can understand all combat loggers. If you are a casual player or value your personal time (for whatever reason) you simply don't want to invest much more time than necessary or loose too much progress as it is not rewarding. Personally, I would also like to be the "king of the merceneries" but in ED I'am damned to be just another medicore mercenery pilot It's not a big problem for me, but it might help the hardcore / competive players to understand why not everyone wants to play this way. I think it's mainly time and fun in my freetime reasons.

Its a shame that there is no virtual test-drive for the ships (yes workaround participate in beta so i heard)
And many things of the game that you wanna do have a long list of prerequisites that have to be fulfilled painfully.
I play at my pace but I noticed already since I restarted the game how much time I sank into it.