A Simple Solution to Combat Logging
- Thread starter Mimix
- Start date
- If you log out, during combat, aka CLogging, but use the menu + associated countdown timer .. that is legit in Frontiers eyes? (Unless something changed I don't know of) It's a dirty tactic and something that only a few players whinge about, but it's not cheating.
- If you log out, during combat, aka CLogging, but pull the plug (instant disconnect AFAIK) that is cheating in Frontiers eyes.
Either way CLogging (in my view) is dishonest ... but cheating? Debatable as to how its done tbh.
Seems we agree on something, however your premise of the fix being "simple" (1st post) is far from it. The infrastructure alone would not hold a copy of the player in-game; moreover, I can think of a few ways to beat such a system given the P2P underlying nature of the game, so any "fix" you implement I can break. (That's my job - cybersecurity - I break things
)
Last edited:
- If you log out, during combat, aka CLogging, but use the menu + associated countdown timer .. that is legit in Frontiers eyes? (Unless something changed I don't know of) It's a dirty tactic and something that only a few players whinge about, but it's not cheating.
- If you log out, during combat, aka CLogging, but pull the plug (instant disconnect AFAIK) that is cheating in Frontiers eyes.
Either way CLogging (in my view) is dishonest ... but cheating? Debatable as to how its done tbh.
Seems we agree on something, however your premise of the fix being "simple" (1st post) is far from it. The infrastructure alone would not hold a copy of the player in-game; moreover, I can think of a few ways to beat such a system given the P2P underlying nature of the game, so any "fix" you implement I can break. (That's my job - cybersecurity - I break things
No need to keep a copy of the player's ship on disconnection. Play a pretty explosion at one side, rebuy screen at the other end (when logging on the next time). How would you break it with or without an obvious cheat (trainer)?
"For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong "
That would only catch those that terminate the client.
Pull the net cable and then log of from the menu and the game thinks you exited clean.
Pull the power on the computer and the ungraceful exit doesn't register and you have to detect it server side.
As soon as you put the detection server side, I starts to be expensive and open to abuse.
In practice you would only catch those that have an accidental client crash and those that panic and hit Alt-F4. Every experienced combat logger would go free.
This. We all know FDev have said they don’t like it. But if it’s not specifically in the EULA, there’s really little they can do in terms of banning etc. The fact they looked at this in detail (collating user reports of clogging) and in the end did nothing should be indication that they determined nothing can be done about it. We just have to accept it as an annoyance and move on. It really is only a game - some people don’t want to play with me, others do. It’s not a big deal, at all.
The explosion would be played by the client of the player who remained in the instance. It should totally be able to tell apart a clean exit (=other player waking out) from a dirty one (=everything else without a wake).
The other player's client should totally be able to tell whether or not it was mid-combat the last time it was running.
ASAIK Frontier can do whatever they WANT to do and whenever they want. They can decide who is allowed to play their game and who's not. And they put up the rules or changing them whenever and however they like to change them, and "we" have nothing, null, nada in our hands to prevent them from doing that. (EULA)
A comparision: A guest enters a restaurant, takes a seat and orders a meal (oddly enough he's paying it beforehand). Now he's insulting other guests, farting loudly, phoning with god knows whom and other guests are complaining about him. What Do you think how long it takes until the manager throws this jerk out of his restaurant? And what do you think the manager will do, after this "guest" claimed: "But I have payed for the meal! You have no right to throw me out...I payed BEFOREHAND so I have my right to stay and you have no right to throw me out!"
Just something to think about.
Please be fair when replying to me and don't try to splice hairs (keep it simple). English is not my primary tongue.
Edit: bad mistyping
Last edited:
You do realise that the 'crime' doesn't need to be explicitly described for it to be enacted upon. For example, one of the first things I was taught as a Non-Commissioned Officer who could charge (enforce military law) or be called upon to be either a Prosecutor or Defending Officer is if in doubt there is one clause in our manual of law that will always be relevant: Conduct unbecoming an airman. That was always the first charge on the sheet and if everything else got thrown out on technicalities then normally that is the one that would stick. Giving the EULA a quick read it would appear that FD could use Clause 4.4 to cover anything they want it to cover.
Dammit Commander you just ninja'd me kind of lolASAIK Frontier can do whatever they WANT to do and whenever they want. They can decide who is allowed to play their game and who's not. And they put up the rules or changing them whenever and however they like to change them, and "we" have nothing, null, nada in our hands to prevent them doing that. (EULA)
A comparsion: A guest enters a restaurant, takes a seat an orders a meal (oddly enough he's paying it beforehand). Now he's insulting other guests, farting loudly, phoning with god knows whom and other guests are complaining about him. What Do you think how long it takes until the manager throws this jerk out of his restaurant? And what do you think the manager will do, after this "guest" claimed: "But I have payed for the meal! You have no right to throw me out...I PAYED Beforehand so I have my right to stay and you habe no right to throw me out!"
Just something to think about.
Please be fair when repling to me and don't try to splice hairs (keep it simple). English is not my primary tongue.
Sorry 'bout that! But it kind of prooves that my "sane" thoughts are not so odd I sometimes (often) think they are.
Last edited:
The explosion is no problem. Everything on the client side can be manipulated. You don't have to close the client to clog.
I find your low quality reply amusing and entertaining so I am gonna pay a little more attention to you.And STILL doesn't proof that FDev is WILLINGLY ignoring your research...and STILL doesn't proof that FDev WILL NOT investigate c-logging further.
So bring me an evidence, for your accusation that FDev is ignoring it all and won't bother to improve the game regarding c-logging even if they ARE able to resolve this issue for your satisfaction.
Your only "evidence" is the fact, that FDev didn't replied to the research. Maybe your assumption that FDev's ignoring clogging is born out of "your" hurt feelings?
Just asking questions.
1. There is proof In these two reports that FDev didn't react to clogging reports.
2. I can not give you any proof of FDev ignoring clogging reports in the future because, alas, I haven't mastered the art of time shifting yet.
3. Who demonstrates more emtional influence? A person replying calm and constructive, or a person replying extravagant and loud?
The EULA is a contract in order to use a service. I’m no lawyer but my friend is (he specifically works in the music industry but it’s fairly transferable). I had this discussion with him 2/3 years ago. They strictly cannot re-interpret the language of a contract retrospectively to capture something new. They can issue an updated terms and conditions but they cannot decide a clause means something different than the intention. This is a common misconception, that making something vague has the effect of it meaning whatever they like - that’s totally untrue. No business would last providing services to customers if they attempted to operate like that. The best they could do is take action against you and hope you don’t take them to court (which you are unlikely to do).
It’s all irrelevant really. FDev looked at c-logging in 2017. The end result was no action. They concluded there’s not much they can do and I would also suggest their time is better spent elsewhere. Just accept it.
The only thing that could be manipulated in the system I was talking about is the consequence (bypassing the rebuy screen), but ppl would need to use a client side hack for it, which is beyond doubt a TOS/EULA breach and can be treated accordingly.
Besides, it's no different now. Virtually everything can be manipulated using hacks.
I haven’t read the full exchange and so I’m not taking sides or aiming at anyone. But the language in some of the exchanges here is really hostile and insulting. Can we not disagree on something that really doesn’t matter to anyone that much in a little more of a civil manner? It’s only a game folks. We can have different views without reducing the forum to it’s almost requisite level of toxicity.
Proof that they didn't reply. Okay...so what? Do you really expect that, if SDC makes the call, Frontier is urged to reply asap? Come on...we both know how chatty Frontier is in general.
But still you claim that Frontier is "ignoring" (sig) any kind of c-log-reporting, not to mention "your" claim that they "don't bother at all"(sig).
Not me...I'm as calm as a Koala.
I don't bother if a jerk is c-logging or not. As I stated several times in several similiar threads, I take a c-log as a win. MY mission to prevent "Gankers" from doing their thing is accomplished. That satisfies me enough. I just pity those folks who don't have the guts to take a beating like a mature, that's all.Proof that they didn't reply. Okay...so what? Do you really expect that, if SDC makes the call, Frontier is urged to reply asap? Come on...we both know how chatty Frontier is in general.
But still you claim that Frontier is "ignoring" (sig) any kind of c-log-reporting, not to mention "your" claim that they "don't bother at all"(sig).
Not me...I'm as calm as a Koala.
He did not say "proof they did not reply" (to the email in which they reported the cloggers), he said "proof they did not react". Afaik the test they did was some members of SDC clogging on some other SDC members. It was the reported members who did not get any warnings from FD, there were no repercussions, bans or anything else, nada.
Last edited:
Okay...REACT!!! Then again...Why should frontier REACT as soon as SDC made the call? And who has proof, that they didn't try to react? Again: maybe they are technically not able to identify c-loggers sufficly from technical connection-losses.
The fact that SDC c-logged themselfs isn't a proper enough statistical basis to properly identify a c-log from other issues causing an unregular logout. A "bunch of people" simply don't represent the majority of costumers. Statistics...
Otherwise...did SDC sabotaged their landlines to foundate their c-log statistic? Just to be sure, almost every circumstance goes into that count?
