How long would a ship need to remain persistent to prevent a menu log from being abused?

Stealthie

Stealthie
sleutelbos said:
Come on now, both of you have been around long enough to know fully well tons of people insist that alt+F4 is a legit way to deal with 'griefers'. In this topic even people immediately suggest that extending the timer will only result in more cheating, basically admitting the only reason many dont cheat yet is because they have a 'legit cheat' available that does the same. Which is absurd, as Sandro indicated earlier. Alt+F4 should result in a ban, menu logging should not be a get-out-of-jail card. Its common sense in gaming, but unfortunately this community holds a large group of people who feel entitled to be safe from any risk at any given moment, no matter what choices were made. Godmode shields, gotmode escape button; it is holding this game back.
Click to expand...

And you've been around long enough to know that menu-logging isn't the same as task-killing and understand why it's highly unlikely FDev can/will ever be able to take punitive action against anybody who task-kills - as your subsequent post concedes.

We keep seeing people suggesting that anybody who menu-logs during combat should just get a rebuy screen on the basis that "it's only pixels so it's no big deal" and yet the same people are, basically, demanding that the entire game gets changed in some fundamental ways just so they aren't wasting any of their pixel ammunition.

Seems like those people might do well to take their own advice and just accept that "it's only pixels so it's no big deal" and just enjoy the rest of the game for what it is.
Or, if they're absolutely determined to play a game where it's impossible to avoid the consequences of PvP, go find one elsewhere.
 

IndigoWyrd

IndigoWyrd
Audaxxx said:
Couldn't the ship just remain in the instance for other cmdrs? We wouldn't need full persistence as i'm pretty sure NPC's don't really mind if you log out on them.
Click to expand...

Sure it could, but without your connection, nothing would be able to happen. You can't register as having been destroyed, because you're no longer there. Your persistent ship would be inert at most. After an hour of firing on your ship your aggressors would realize that you weren't there, they've wasted their ammo, and there would be more salt posting.

Why?

Because there is no server-client model. YOU are the server and the client. So it just doesn't work. Can't work. Isn't going to be rewritten to work.

The only solution, as I've said for years, is this:

Ship disconnects ungracefully, it appears to explode. Aggressors are happy, they believe they've killed you.
You're happy, because you log back in not dead.
No one knows the difference, no more salt-threads.
No more pointless "But if it were persistent" threads.

Just a neat, clean solution - a Compromise.

Compromise (n) : A solution that no one likes, but everyone can live with.
 

Kaocraft

Kaocraft
znôrt said:
it would indeed be possible, but the whole thing is like eating soup with a fork already, and flaky like hell ... are you sure you want to complicate it even more?

making the logout automatic would be a nobrainer, though, and would make many happy. i'm fine either way, it doesn't really make much difference.
Click to expand...

I've given up on wanting anything at this point. I'm just pointing out that the whole "technically unfeasible and therefore let's not talk about this anymore no not ever never not ever" line of argument is disingenuous and a deliberate derailing tactic by people who enjoy combat logging. I'm not saying any of this for Frontier's benefit as far as I'm concerned they like combat logging in all its forms and are going to cater to it for the foreseeable future. Combat loggers are their primary audience.

But if I'm understanding you correctly: Yeah. I'd love a logout timer which auto-quits you when the countdown is done. The whole point of quitting in the middle of a battle is that I need to get up and go somewhere Right. Now. Not 15 seconds from now. I'm fine with taking my chances I just don't think I should have to stare at the timer and then wait for the "exit" box to no longer be greyed out.

And yeah they can extend the timer if they want and have incoming damage extend the timer. By all means make it totally impractical to escape from a firefight using anything other than alt-F4. And then ban anyone who uses alt-F4.
 

Roybe

Roybe
Kaocraft said:
I've given up on wanting anything at this point. I'm just pointing out that the whole "technically unfeasible and therefore let's not talk about this anymore no not ever never not ever" line of argument is disingenuous and a deliberate derailing tactic by people who enjoy combat logging. I'm not saying any of this for Frontier's benefit as far as I'm concerned they like combat logging in all its forms and are going to cater to it for the foreseeable future. Combat loggers are their primary audience.

But if I'm understanding you correctly: Yeah. I'd love a logout timer which auto-quits you when the countdown is done. The whole point of quitting in the middle of a battle is that I need to get up and go somewhere Right. Now. Not 15 seconds from now. I'm fine with taking my chances I just don't think I should have to stare at the timer and then wait for the "exit" box to no longer be greyed out.

And yeah they can extend the timer if they want and have incoming damage extend the timer. By all means make it totally impractical to escape from a firefight using anything other than alt-F4. And then ban anyone who uses alt-F4.
Click to expand...

just easier to self destruct and move on.
 

Wyldwiisel

W
Thogapotomus said:
This is one thing Eve got right, in my opinion. If elite had authority response in high security systems like Eve does(did? been years since I played) people would be far more happy to play in open.
Click to expand...

This and some galactic trimming so that there are a few scoopable trade routes in the bubble
You eiether trade along these routes with a fuel scoop or you have to dock every couple of jumps and a 40ly dead zone around the bubble so if you want out you have to use one of 3 ways out that would provide trade routes for pirates defendable high value systems for PVPers
But my conda can jump 60 SO!! It hasn't got any cargo you go out of the bubble and fill up on low temp diamonds there are only 3 ways back in
 
Last edited:

CMDR Zadian Lichtfrost

C
So much drama about nothing.

Simple solution:
An other player acts in a way "you" don't like - block that player and move on. It doesn't matter if you can blow up the virtual space ship of an other player or not. It's completely pointless and meaningless beside having some fun together with an other player who enjoys to play the game the same way like "you" do.
Block the player and enjoy playing with players who enjoy playing with "you".


If "you" don't like to get into combat with an other player, don't play in open mode.
With 3.3 players will, for all I know, be able to chat with all players in the system and across all modes. No need to be in open mode anymore to just chat.


And please FDev: Make the menu log out timer "when in danger" auto accept. It's pretty pointless wanting to log out "NOW" if I have to wait 15s until I can click OK.
 

Kilo

K
Pretty sure only 2.8% menu log when in battle. So extend timer by 2.8%, allow exit confirmation upfront and give the remaining player 2.8% of bounty or mats or 'splosion animation.

Boom everyone is happy!
 

Kaocraft

Kaocraft
CMDR Zadian Lichtfrost said:
It doesn't matter if you can blow up the virtual space ship of an other player or not.
Click to expand...
While "your" (seriously why the quotes around "you"?) message of "Stop Caring So Much About the Outcome of a Game!!!" is good and valid, I don't think the official Elite Dangerous forum is likely to be a place where such a message carries much weight.
 

Audaxxx

Audaxxx
sleutelbos said:
Currently, no, that is not possible due to the p2p infrastructure.
Click to expand...

Do you know that for sure sleutelos or are you guessing slightly? When someone taskills atm their ship already stays in the instance for a certain amount of time but doesn't take damage so there's already some persistence happening, couldn't this be changed so that the ship receives damage and any damage states saved to the server? All this would be processed by one of the remaining cmdrs in the instance effectively handling the ship as an NPC from that point on.
 

CMDR Cosmic Spacehead

CMDR Cosmic Spacehead
Audaxxx said:
Do you know that for sure sleutelos or are you guessing slightly? When someone taskills atm their ship already stays in the instance for a certain amount of time but doesn't take damage so there's already some persistence happening, couldn't this be changed so that the ship receives damage and any damage states saved to the server? All this would be processed by one of the remaining cmdrs in the instance effectively handling the ship as an NPC from that point on.
Click to expand...

Nah, when you're no longer transmitting, you're effectively not there, even if the game thinks you are for a second.
You can't rely on the other CMDR to transmit damage data to your account, that'll open up a whole can 'o worms.
 

Viscera

Viscera
Personally I cannot give two hoots about logging out of the game at anytime, and how it could affect other players.
If I want to quit the game, then I want to quit the game. It should happen instantly that I decide to do so.
I am playing (or choosing not too) so I am the only important person at this time.
Remove the delay Fd. Its just a waste of time anyway as it is easily negatable if someone so wishes.
Make it a click to quit, are you sure, click yes or no, Gone. No time delays.
 

Ian Skippy

Ian Skippy
Audaxxx said:
Do you know that for sure sleutelos or are you guessing slightly? When someone taskills atm their ship already stays in the instance for a certain amount of time but doesn't take damage so there's already some persistence happening, couldn't this be changed so that the ship receives damage and any damage states saved to the server? All this would be processed by one of the remaining cmdrs in the instance effectively handling the ship as an NPC from that point on.
Click to expand...

Yes and no. It isn't technically impossible to have the second client 'host' a copy of the first client after a disconnect. It also wouldn't be impossible to send any ship destruction to FD, and have them register client #1's ship as being destroyed. So sure, this part if technically no issue. The problem is that it is technically not possible to do so in a way that isn't 100% easy to break with almost no effort. Here's the deal: for P2P to work our clients need to contact each other, and send updates. Suppose something happens, and my client doesn't get any updates from your client. Does this mean you logged and I can host your ship while I blow it up? Or did I actively block your incoming data via your IP? ED doesn't know, and cannot know. All it knows is that it expected data, and is getting none.

So we could do what you want, but it would mean anyone could block you outside of the ED application and kill you whenever they want, and there'd be nothing you can do against it. And because your ship's destruction is communicated by me to FD, with nothing to verify it against, I could just send a 'btw Audaxxx is dead' signal even without blowing up your 'ghostship'. Ask yourself if that is better or worse than CL'ing.
 

Ian Skippy

Ian Skippy
Han_Zen said:
You take that rebuy if the light them self up once in a while, but if they do it every night, it gets expensive. :p
Click to expand...

This. These bizarre extreme scenarios happen pretty much never (for real, how often has any of you had their spouse combust into flames exactly when in combat?), and if something occurs you just accept the rebuy. And if you happen to be in the position where you constantly need to go away on a moment's notice, stop playing a MP game. Its basic social interaction skills, and it is somewhat odd to see quite a few people proudly not having any.
 

Nadreck

N
I think it would be rather amusing if a legitimate disconnect occurs, both players keep playing, each thinks the other has combat-logged, the death penalty for combat-logging is invoked, and both blow up.

Or the ghost-ship idea is implemented (and that gets complicated if there aren't just two participants - who hosts it? Could there be multiple ghosts?), and each player destroys the other's ghost-ship. They both win, then FDev suddenly decides that they should both be dead. Meanwhile another ship gets destroyed by a ship that should be dead, therefore that one should be alive.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom