That is an archetypal false equivalence fallacy.
In-game characters playing unfairly with each other is entirely within the scope of intended gameplay.
Nothing any other game does is relevant to what Elite: Dangerous does in this context.
Combat logging no longer an exploit? * trigger warning *
- Thread starter bladebss
- Start date
That is an archetypal false equivalence fallacy.
In-game characters playing unfairly with each other is entirely within the scope of intended gameplay.
Nothing any other game does is relevant to what Elite: Dangerous does in this context.
The whole point of the thread is to ask whether FD do actually say this. It seems plausible to me that you're right, but no-one has produced a citation. Have you got a link?
Check my post above. I tracked down the original statement and a link to it.
Multiple people have produced citations.
There's the trouble. They say it's an undesirable exploit but also admit that they can't yet do anything about it. "Bannable" appears extremely unlikely given those words.
Not condoning it. I've never clogged and never will.
Factually incorrect - and a rather amusing misinterpretation of the logical fallacy argument.
The learning curve of ED is VERY well known at this point. The difference between newcomers, mid-level and experienced players is VERY well defined.
We KNOW that newer players CANNOT succeed against more experienced players. We ALSO know that many mid-level players - the category that many gankers fall into - deliberately target newcomers.
If THEY can use the game's mechanics to succeed, then so can newcomers. Combat Logging is, in this case, a legitimate balancing act that newcomers can use if they're fast enough - which, to be clear, is rare.
New players CANNOT withstand gankers; that is WHY gankers kill newer players. They're cowards who want easy kills. Combat Logging allows new players ONE chance (and with a 20 second delay, it's a slim one) to escape.
Last edited:
![[VR] M4st0d0n](https://d2aefvhu2f0gi9.cloudfront.net/data/avatars/m/182/182772.jpg?1569064854){kind=avatar}
I've got one good news for you good sir.
Advanced telemetry.
Also, open only powerplay.
Now let me pack my things.
I don't quite think it's that they couldn't do anything about it; that quote is from 2015 and they were just getting a grasp on the idea of it. I think it's more along the lines of whether they were actually prepared to take action on accounts and felt comfortable enough doing so. What he was saying they couldn't do was have the game keep your ship logged in and let you get blown up if you get DCed.
The truth is I haven't heard of anyone get actioned for doing it, and I agree that I can find no reference of them specifically saying you would be "banned" for doing it. What action they'd take I'm unsure of, all I know is that they did specifically state they were willing to. And as for being able to- all of us access the game through their login server, so removing one's access to that login server pretty much ends access to playing the game for an account.
Just task kill, don't worry about it, and don't bother with pointless excuses about it.
At worst you'll get an email from FDev saying "Please don't do that, it's not nice."
More likely it'll be a couple years before their beleaguered CS team work their way to a ticket, if anyone even jumps through the hoops to file one on you.
At worst you'll get an email from FDev saying "Please don't do that, it's not nice."
More likely it'll be a couple years before their beleaguered CS team work their way to a ticket, if anyone even jumps through the hoops to file one on you.
Yes, it's all possible, but I don't believe FD could risk banning anyone for something which is impossible to prove. "Bannable" is a bit of a stretch IMO.
20 seconds? You seem to be confusing combat logging (turning game off, instant escape), with menu logging (timer countdown required to escape).
The argument here is about the former, which given that one player on this thread received a warning for, is deemed an exploit by Frontier.
I agree. Proving "Who is right" in any conflict would EASILY swamp FD with minor whining complaints. ED is largely self-policing; and that is one of its joys. A ganker is better dealt with by blowing him into his component atoms; not screaming to Mommy.
There was a post here or on reddit a while back there somebody complained that they got a temp ban to the shadow realms for clogging in PG against an npc with other CMDRs in the same instance. Also certain interactions with a CMDR in the last weeks make it very likely that FDev care about clogging and that their stance is still that it's against the rules. If it's reported there is a higher chance to get a warning or temp ban. Don't know if serial loggers go permamently to the shadow server though.
Having only EVER combat-logged once in my entire career, I'm unsure as to the actual delay - that was a guess.
YOU seem to have a much more certain knowledge of the act. You combat-log quite a bit, do you?
This is entirely possible. With that said, most games don't aim for evidence beyond a shadow of a doubt; they usually just gather enough to hit a certain confidence rating.
IMHO: looking at this objectively, I would say that you can get pretty close to a high confidence rating for taking action against someone doing this using a data driven approach, looking for patterns... assuming they keep combat logs (I'd hope they do lol)
For example, just a simplistic refinement approach that is probably far more simple than what they'd use, but could make a decent example-
- First: Define the possibility of combat logging as being a disconnect from the game during combat. This is not saying all DCs during combat are combat logging, but rather than this is starting point for what to look for
- Second: Refine your metric down to disconnects that occur when a ship is in combat, their shields are down, and their hull is below some % (lets say 20. Arbitrary number). Define this mark as an unfavorable combat scenario.
- Third: Refine metric down to recurring instances. A single instance of disconnecting meeting the above 2 criteria means nothing; could be bad luck. Continual disconnects in that dataset create a pattern.
- Finally: Then compare the number of times they DC during unfavorable combat scenarios vs all other DCs during combat. If the user continually DCs in combat regardless of circumstance, you probably can't make a conclusion. They may have a bad machine or internet. However, if the user is far more likely to, or only seems to, disconnect during unfavorable combat scenarios then you have a pretty high confidence rating that this person is combat logging.
Following this approach, they could at least be relatively confident the user is combat logging, IMO.
I'm pretty sure turning your computer off switches the game off instantly.Having only EVER logged off once in my entire career, I'm unsure as to the actual delay - that was a guess.
YOU seem to have a much more certain knowledge of the act. You combat-log quite a bit, do you?
Anyway, no need to. I've always built my ship properly.
Because you dont play anything else. Sure.
I'd say any game is relevant with what Elite Dangerous doesnt do in this context. I could invent a version of Poker, but once you all in you're able to leave the table with all your cash, and the others would just be allowed to fill a report and argue endlessly on the forums.
It's simple as that, design doesnt define clear loss or win state. If disconnexion is the win state, your game is broken.
Last edited:
Having only EVER combat-logged once in my entire career, I'm unsure as to the actual delay - that was a guess.
YOU seem to have a much more certain knowledge of the act. You combat-log quite a bit, do you?
It's 15 seconds. I relogged in the middle of a guardian site a few dozen times last weekend farming mats, and the local guardian sentries counted as dangerous. Spent more time than I care to think about staring at that 15 second timer.
Logging in this manner during combat with another player is not considered an exploit, particularly because 15 seconds staring at a login screen is a long time when you're getting blasted to high heaven; plus most folks won't trigger it until their ship is so badly damaged they wouldn't last 15 seconds.
Yeah, I thought menu logging took 15 seconds. Did that ever change? By the way, has there ever been any discussion about finding a compromise that technically converts the real combat logging into a menu logging, e.g. to keep the ship alive and vulnerable for the next 15 seconds? In this case, no one would have to pull the plug (since it would make no sense anymore) and the people on the other end would only have to complain about menu logging.
Probably one reason they distinguish the two is because of how the networking in this game works. Since it's P2P, both clients need to register what's happening. If you normal log, your ship takes damage for the 15 seconds it sits in the game waiting to vanish. You could die in that time. But if you "combat log", ie DC, your ship becomes invulnerable during the time it sits there. You can see examples of this on some of the PvP videos; in fact, there's a courier vs corvette pvp video where the corvette logs, and it just stops taking damage all together.
Then when they come back, their ship can sometimes be fully repaired, as was the instance in that video.
I'm sure you have. But you DID know that my estimate of 20 seconds was incorrect; that was WHY you answered. So you HAVE combat logged enough to know the difference.
Cheers!
(snicker)