A Simple Solution to Combat Logging

Interesting, I have never heard about it before so I can't comment on anything that takes this into account. Need to do some research first.
I only learned about it this past year. Its a shame the lengths some people will go to ruin someone else's, a complete stranger no less, good time. Should be considered a form of terrorism and punished as such imo
 
I don't understand this. Does it mean that player A can cause player B to disconnected without B's consent while A remains connected?
Even if it was possible, some dedicated software would most certainly be required, they couldn't possibly do it manually. How would it work? "Okay, I'm under attack, so I'll just alt-tab out of the game, let's see what I should do now to be able to see the IP address of the other player, okay, now how should I overload his connection without overloading my own..."

How many times could the other player shoot down the drifting ship while its owner was fiddling around outside of the game?

And if the cheater used a dedicated software to do it automatically, he might as well have used the trainer to just give himself infinite shields instead...
 
Even if it was possible, some dedicated software would most certainly be required, they couldn't possibly do it manually. How would it work? "Okay, I'm under attack, so I'll just alt-tab out of the game, let's see what I should do now to be able to see the IP address of the other player, okay, now how should I overload his connection without overloading my own..."

How many times could the other player shoot down the drifting ship while its owner was fiddling around outside of the game?

And if the cheater used a dedicated software to do it automatically, he might as well have used the trainer to just give himself infinite shields instead...
More than likely its software they have up and running that lags out everyone in the system but them. I imagine it would be similar to chat bot booting we used to do on yahoo messenger about 20years ago. Its probably the same basic idea evoled for a decade or so. Seeing as I have no idea how this stuff works I'm just guessing based on things that I do kind of know about so don't take any of this as fact
 
Unfortunately, it's entirely possible to forcibly disconnect someone else. (Although I don't know how personally, but I've been told. Lol)
Only from you or systems you have control over. You can't disconnect someone else from Frontier or other peers that may be present.

Ideally, even if one could isolate specific connections and block traffic, the game should be able to route around such a block (either via TUN/TURN servers or using other peers as relays) with barely a perceptible hiccup, so the only reliable way to sever connections with any peer would be to sever connections with all of them and Frontier...but the game's networking doesn't appear to be anywhere near ideal.

Even if it was possible, some dedicated software would most certainly be required, they couldn't possibly do it manually. How would it work?
Resource Monitor see what IPs were connected to EliteDangerous64.exe and a command prompt to throw said IPs into the Windows' firewall with netsh advfirewall firewall is about as complex as it needs to get. Could probably be done in three seconds if someone had practice and both windows up.

Of course that's not going to cause their client to crash or disconnect from the game as a whole, but it will probably remove them from your instance and look like any other combat log from the perspective of both peers.
 
Only from you or systems you have control over. You can't disconnect someone else from Frontier or other peers that may be present.

Ideally, even if one could isolate specific connections and block traffic, the game should be able to route around such a block (either via TUN/TURN servers or using other peers as relays) with barely a perceptible hiccup, so the only reliable way to sever connections with any peer would be to sever connections with all of them and Frontier...but the game's networking doesn't appear to be anywhere near ideal.



Resource Monitor see what IPs were connected to EliteDangerous64.exe and a command prompt to throw said IPs into the Windows' firewall with netsh advfirewall firewall is about as complex as it needs to get. Could probably be done in three seconds if someone had practice and both windows up.
The way i understand it lag switching has been going on for quite some time. Years. Idk if they got the same memo as you and i cant say it happens on elite, but it definitely happens.

After rereading you post i. Not sure if my reply is pertinent. Ima leave it just in case but if not please, disregard.
 
The way i understand it lag switching has been going on for quite some time. Years. Idk if they got the same memo as you and i cant say it happens on elite, but it definitely happens.
Deliberately inducing lag in other peers sounds plausible.

I've accidentally caused problems with instances by transcoding video while playing and being the instance host. The game doesn't seem to react very quickly to problems with peers.
 
Resource Monitor see what IPs were connected to EliteDangerous64.exe and a command prompt to throw said IPs into the Windows' firewall with netsh advfirewall firewall is about as complex as it needs to get. Could probably be done in three seconds if someone had practice and both windows up.

Of course that's not going to cause their client to crash or disconnect from the game as a whole, but it will probably remove them from your instance and look like any other combat log from the perspective of both peers.
So the worst case scenario would be either both ships being sent to the rebuy screen (if the hypothetical instadeath-on-disconnect rule was a thing), or neither of them.
 
So the worst case scenario would be either both ships being sent to the rebuy screen (if the hypothetical instadeath-on-disconnect rule was a thing), or neither of them.
The worst case scenario of ship loss on disconnection to any peer would be rampant abuse...people killing connection just to destroy everyone else in the instance.

Exploding when losing connection to Frontier isn't something that would be easy to abuse, but it's both common enough to be problematic for entirely legitimate players, and would only deter the most basic forms of combat logging. Not sure the cost/benefit ratio is particularly good here.
 
The worst case scenario of ship loss on disconnection to any peer would be rampant abuse...people killing connection just to destroy everyone else in the instance.

Exploding when losing connection to Frontier isn't something that would be easy to abuse, but it's both common enough to be problematic for entirely legitimate players, and would only deter the most basic forms of combat logging. Not sure the cost/benefit ratio is particularly good here.
I have at least one blue screen crash every time I play the game on console. you can guess what game I wouldn't be playing if I had to re-buy my ship every time that happened
 
So, no, there's no breach of any type of EULA if a player decides they want to quit. That's just silly...
Not accurate - Menu Exit with/without Timer is allowed, deliberate forced termination of connection by any other means (in doing so bypassing any FD enforced timer) is an EULA/CoC breach.

Someone exiting a Denial of Service attack is both breaching the EULA/CoC and (at least with ISPs in the UK) breaching the terms of service for the ISP.
 
Last edited:
T mobile has got to be the shadiest mobile phone company ive ever dealt with. The sales rep sold my a wifi hotspot telling me it was unlimited 4g service. Three hours of netflix later and i was out of data. Returned it, got my money back. Still getting collection calls for a servixe i returned after 4 hours because what i sold in theory wasnt what i received. In the states this is called theft by deception.
In the UK, it could be considered something similar - a flagrant breech of the principles of Trading Standards. However, small print can get around it in some cases.
 
I think that combat logging is something that can be handled without causing undue hardship on the players. When balancing things, it always comes down to patterns.

If you are architecting a system, you have to accept that there will be exception cases which will happen that throw a wrench in things. For example: an online game where two players are in combat and one leaves the game mid-combat due to what the client reads as a system failure. This happens to even legitimate players who are having a good time, so you can't exactly punish that, right? That's what a lot of players here seem to be concerned about: the "simple rules" people keep coming up with involve harsh punishments, and it's scary to imagine getting said punishments for something you didn't do wrong.

With that said: there's a way to have your cake and eat it, too. People who combat log are very unlikely to do so 1 time and never do it again. The reality is that it's an easy out, and once they've tried it they'll probably be more inclined to do it more often. And as frustrating to the individual as a single combat logging instance can be, it's peanuts in the grand scale of things and not worth trying to take action over... especially since you can't know their intent.

Now, the fun thing about combat logging is that it seems to me like it would be a very loggable event; as in: it would be an event that you could easily keep a record of happening. Was said player in a state of combat? Yes. Shields low or gone? Yes. Hull low or gone? Yes. Seems to me, and maybe I'm wrong based on how ED is written, that this could be an event you could keep track of.

While it's not unheard of for a legitimate player to get disconnected mid-combat with someone, and would be silly to punish them for that, it does start to become very suspicious if they keep doing it. If a player continually DCs during combat, and sometimes only during combat situations, suddenly you have a pattern. And patterns are actionable.

To me, the answer actually is sort of simple. If a player continually gets "disconnected" mid combat event, more than some minimal threshold that FDev decides upon in a given week/month/year, then a penalty should be applied. Maybe the ship stops disappearing when they DC, or some other penalty.

And for those concerned about players abusing UDP to do this to their opponents? I would imagine an appeal process could sort that out. Again, someone who is willing to try to DC their opponents from the peered instance to trigger this won't just do it one time. If there's a pattern of this person's opponents constantly DCing, or even just DCing when they are about to beat said person? That's a bit more serious and probably falls within perm-ban territory, IMO, but I doubt FDev would feel so strongly about it lol

Anyhow, just my $0.02 on the feasibility of such a thing. It's not something that bothers me too much, but I see a lot of folks struggling with whether it can be punished fairly or not, and at a minimum I at least believe the answer to that is "yes".
 
I wonder how long it will go on...unfortunately I will be working the rest of the week so will need to let you all complain at each other without my helpful interjections. Laterz everyone. Try not to get too upset now - it’s only a game.
I wouldn't worry. If history is anything to go by you could take a three year sabbatical and the subject would still be waiting for you when you got back. It's more evergreen than a eucalypt forest.
 
Simply accept there is never going to be a solution to this because, as I've said, time and time again, this is not a game problem. It's not a Frontier problem.
It's a People Problem.

Frontier cannot and will not fix people.
These forums cannot and will not fix people.

Whining about it will not fix people.

Personally, I don't agree with it, but I do see it as the highest form of Griefing there is. No other group has whined more about anything in Elite than the victims of a combat log. Not even the Bring-Back-the-ADS trio has made more noise about a singular subject that has no solution.

Keep it up, I have 40 acres of popcorn.
 
Simply accept there is never going to be a solution to this because, as I've said, time and time again, this is not a game problem. It's not a Frontier problem.
It's a People Problem.
A good multi-player game accounts for people who will try to abuse it.

There are plenty of network systems, even peer-to-peer ones, that do not require clients to be trustworthy.
 
A good multi-player game accounts for people who will try to abuse it.

There are plenty of network systems, even peer-to-peer ones, that do not require clients to be trustworthy.
Clearly then, this isn't a "good multiplayer game" then is it? And it's not going to be.

No client is trustworthy.

 
Clearly then, this isn't a "good multiplayer game" then is it?
It's multiplayer aspects could certainly use some work.

And it's not going to be.
I can't say for sure whether it will improve, but it certainly could improve, even if the honesty of players does not.

No client is trustworthy.
The point is that they don't need to be. If a client says something that cannot be corroborated, it should be assumed to be mistaken or lying. Distributed consensus, for example, is very effective in preserving the integrity of peer-to-peer networks.
 
Top Bottom