A Simple Solution to Combat Logging

[Northpin]

it always comes down to patterns.

Yes.
But it will require coding, storing massive amounts of data and/or lots of processing power.
Edit: and it will still be prone to false positives.

And for what? For an issue that most of the time it gets blown out of proportions and that affect a small subset of the player base.

I'd rather have Carriers.
And Ice planets
And a less buggy game
And a Next Era released on time, also with not as many bugs.

 

[IndigoWyrd]

Yes.
But it will require coding, storing massive amounts of data and/or lots of processing power.
Edit: and it will still be prone to false positives.

And for what? For an issue that most of the time it gets blown out of proportions and that affect a small subset of the player base.

I'd rather have Carriers.
And Ice planets
And a less buggy game
And a Next Era released on time, also with not as many bugs.

And the post-release patch for Next Era. With even fewer bugs.

 

[Jack Schitt]

A good multi-player game accounts for people who will try to abuse it.

A lot of people voiced that in 2012-2014, but their voices were largely ignored. Some days I can't help but wonder whether David Braben, who was most definitely calling the shots back then more so than he is now, was simply too naive and overwhelmed by the success of the Kickstarter that he genuinely believed nobody in the Elite community would ever consider abusing the game, either in terms of annoying other players or in terms of exploiting the architecture.

I know that might seem like a ridiculous conclusion given the man's decades in the gaming industry. Believe me, in many ways it seems ridiculous to me too. But you have to remember that he's also a dreamer, and his project was initially funded to a large degree by fellow dreamers, and ED was the first Frontier game to include the option of direct PVP. I honestly can't dismiss the idea that he simply couldn't conceive of anyone prioritising the ruining of someone else's game over their own immersion within in. Listen to the slightly dismissive laugh in his voice when he's discussing "griefing" in early interviews and at conferences, and explaining how the game's rules will make it irrelevant. He didn't have a clue, and wouldn't listen to the people who did.

 

[lenna]

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.

...

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".

Like alot of those that promote automated tools, the primary issue with what you are saying is couched with assumptions.

Patterns of events are indicators in matters of policing matters such as combat logging but are NOT proof of misconduct nor are they sufficient grounds for assuming misconduct. Any such patterns are suitable grounds for a detailed investigation by FD - nothing more, nothing less. It does not matter whether we are talking about Combat Logging, Griefing, or Ganking - ultimately, manual intervention is always should be required wrt applying any penalties for misconduct.

 

[Kubicide]

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.

Sorry but I'd say this most certainly is a Frontier problem. The game has a severe problem with risk versus reward in open play and always had since release. FDev need to fix this. It's not a player problem. It's a game design problem.

If it was a supposed people problem then all online games would have this issue, but they don't. Well designed games don't have this problem at all.

 

[IndigoWyrd]

Sorry but I'd say this most certainly is a Frontier problem. The game has a severe problem with risk versus reward in open play and always had since release. FDev need to fix this. It's not a player problem. It's a game design problem.

If it was a supposed people problem then all online games would have this issue, but they don't. Well designed games don't have this problem at all.

Well, you want to fix the risk vs. reward for me - it'll take cash. $300/hr I hang around in open, regardless if I so much as see another player or not. Plus, no connections to Open for anyone with ping greater than 54. Non-negotiable.

Otherwise, there is no reward worth the risk of crossing paths with someone with a laggy connection that's going to make their ship skip across space like a stone on a pond, or cause my ship to be extracted from a station while landing because their latency is that bad.

Got a better offer? If not, take your risk vs. reward and shove it up a black hole. Sorriest excuse ever.

 

[lenna]

Yea, and i'm pretty sure Microsoft and Sony will laugh their arxes off if FDev will claim that turning off the console at any given time should be a punishable offence - because FDev could not properly design the pvp component of the game.

Ultimately, the point is "Combat Logging" is the EULA/CoC offence under discussion - nothing more, nothing less.

That ultimately means "deliberately" using any non-sanctioned means (only menu logging is sanctioned) to terminate a (primarily PvP) combat session in ED with the primary intent of avoiding in-game loss through death.

Doing this is considered cheating based on the EULA/CoC for ED, and ultimately is not due to poor design choices regarding PvP but rather poor behaviours on the part of some that get involved in PvP combat incidents. PvP in ED was always (and seemingly still is) intended to be emergent and incidental as opposed to a structured and deliberate reason for playing ED in itself.

As far as I am aware, neither Microsoft nor Sony will back players that have been found guilty of cheating (at least in the habitual cases). However, the key issue with any Combat Logging accusations is proving "deliberate intent" on the part of the accused, that will notionally require evidence acquired through FD's logging of our ED account activity and other means of data gathering at their disposal.

 

[IndigoWyrd]

Ultimately, the point is "Combat Logging" is the EULA/CoC offence under discussion - nothing more, nothing less.

That ultimately means "deliberately" using any non-sanctioned means (only menu logging is sanctioned) to terminate a (primarily PvP) combat session in ED with the primary intent of avoiding in-game loss through death.

Doing this is considered cheating based on the EULA/CoC for ED, and ultimately is not due to poor design choices regarding PvP but rather poor behaviours on the part of some that get involved in PvP combat incidents. PvP in ED was always (and seemingly still is) intended to be emergent and incidental as opposed to a structured and deliberate reason for playing ED in itself.

As far as I am aware, neither Microsoft nor Sony will back players that have been found guilty of cheating (at least in the habitual cases). However, the key issue with any Combat Logging accusations is proving "deliberate intent" on the part of the accused, that will notionally require evidence acquired through FD's logging of our ED account activity and other means of data gathering at their disposal.

Without an outright confession or the invention of the "intentiometer", there is no way to definitively prove intent.

 

[Stealthie]

Edit: and it will still be prone to false positives.

That's all there is to it, really.

If I wanted to combat-log, all I'd have to do to dodge any kind of "network watchdog" software would be to task-kill the game a whole bunch of other times too.

To be brutally honest, almost all the times I've task-killed ED it's been because the game, itself, has hung-up during the transition between instances (either entering, during or leaving FSD or SC) and I suspect the main result of creating some kind of "network watchdog" software would be that FDev would realise their network routine sucks.

 

[IndigoWyrd]

That's all there is to it, really.

If I wanted to combat-log, all I'd have to do to dodge any kind of "network watchdog" software would be to task-kill the game a whole bunch of other times too.

To be brutally honest, almost all the times I've task-killed ED it's been because the game, itself, has hung-up during the transition between instances (either entering, during or leaving FSD or SC) and I suspect the main result of creating some kind of "network watchdog" software would be that FDev would realise their network routine sucks.

If I start counting the number of times I've had to task-kill Elite after choosing "Log Off" from the menu, when the only danger I faced was falling asleep in my chair and it just sits there, staring at me, doing not a thing...

Star Citizen 2 would be in late beta before I was done.

 

[lenna]

Without an outright confession or the invention of the "intentiometer", there is no way to definitively prove intent.

Perhaps, but not entirely accurate - maybe not beyond ANY doubt, but it is certainly provable beyond "reasonable" doubt.

FD would need sufficient evidence to sufficiently indicate intent, not overwhelmingly prove it. The notional penalty for a breech of the EULA/CoC is a shadow ban which would not necessarily require FD to prove anything to anyone else regardless - they can action that on their side as I understand it.

Regardless, the point still stands that Combat Logging is a breech of the EULA/CoC and we are all bound by the stipulated terms.

 

[Ganogati]

Like alot of those that promote automated tools, the primary issue with what you are saying is couched with assumptions.

Patterns of events are indicators in matters of policing matters such as combat logging but are NOT proof of misconduct nor are they sufficient grounds for assuming misconduct. Any such patterns are suitable grounds for a detailed investigation by FD - nothing more, nothing less. It does not matter whether we are talking about Combat Logging, Griefing, or Ganking - ultimately, manual intervention is always should be required wrt applying any penalties for misconduct.

I'm not sure that human intervention would likely bring much of a different result, but instead of an automated punishment it could just automatically flag an account to be reviewed/banned by a human instead of doing the banning itself.

Ultimately, it seems to me that if a player has a pattern of the following, as in they have had this continually happen in some span of time (whatever FDev determines reasonable), you could feel pretty confident that the user is combat logging:

• The user has logged out while in combat
• AND the user's overall situation (combat rating vs enemy ship, health/shields vs enemy ship, etc) is worse off than their opponent's
• AND the user's client has a "failure", causing the user to suddenly disappear from the game
• AND the user had had the above be true for multiple occurrences in a period of time (ie: 5 times in a 2 week span, or less/more depending on what FDev decides)

Considering AND logic to be that every single criteria must be met, or the entire result is false, then it seems pretty likely that this is combat logging scenario. And since it would ultimately come down to a person to do the banned, with the system just catching them, a human could then make sure the user wasn't also getting logged out during favorable combat situations, no combat situations, and generally just having crap internet.

A red flag system would definitely help catch people who are doing this, even if it doesn't take action on its own.

 

[Archvillain]

As far as I am aware, neither Microsoft nor Sony will back players that have been found guilty of cheating (at least in the habitual cases).

I think the issue being pointed to is that for MS or Sony to authorize a game on their platform, the game must meet their certification. That certification process includes a vast list of problems the game must be able to tolerate gracefully, such as unplugging the controller mid-game, etc. While I don't recall specifically, I think it's a safe bet that a game must be able to handle loss of internet connection to pass cert. Punishing a customer (over and above loss of internet functions) for losing connection would violate cert. It wouldn't get to the point of MS/Sony asking whether a player is cheating or deciding not to back cheaters, because for someone to be able to play the game it must first pass cert, so the game must allow disconnection.

(Heh, whether a game could pull a WV-diesel and deliberately violate cert under specific-enough conditions that MS/Sony probably won't notice that the game cheats their requirements... that's another story, but games are multi-million dollar products, so publishers don't like taking unnecessary gambles with delays and complications)

 

[Bashy81]

think the issue being pointed to is that for MS or Sony to authorize a game on their platform, the game must meet their certification. That certification process includes a vast list of problems the game must be able to tolerate gracefully, such as unplugging the controller mid-game, etc. While I don't recall specifically, I think it's a safe bet that a game must be able to tolerate loss of internet connection to pass cert. Punishing a player (over and above loss of internet functions) for loss of connection would violate cert.

While the above is supposition, one thing we know had to pass the console cert is the EULA. It gives Fdev the right to shadowban anyone whenever they want. Its a kindness if they bother to explain why. Suspicion on their part is quite enough, they dont need to prove intent to CLog. Incidentally tho, the section that precludes CLogging could just as easily be applied to unwanted PvP or even 'supporting a faction Braben's not fond of'.

Point is, the EULA makes Fdev judge, jury and executioner when it comes to the use of their game, and they are free to change their narrow interpretation of their own EULA as they see fit, as it grants them far more rights than they actually employ most of the time.
Essentially, we have the right to have the game installed. We have no right to be able to actually use it.

"8.2 The Online Features are provided over the internet as provided by Frontier. You acknowledge that the Online Features are provided by Frontier at its discretion and may be terminated or otherwise discontinued by Frontier at any time."
7.1 Online Features
7.1.1 The Game may allow certain online services operated by Frontier and/or its affiliates or third parties authorised on their behalf to be accessed, which allow users of the Game to enjoy certain on-line or multiplayer features and functionality associated with the Game (“Online Features”). These services and Online Features may, however, require payment of additional fees. In addition, access to and use of such Online Features and other goods or information made available as part of such services may be subject to completion of a registration process and acceptance of additional terms and conditions including, but not limited to, privacy policies governing the use and processing of personally identifiable information. Not all purchasers of this Game will be able to register or benefit from such services (including Online Features associated with the Game). These services and Online Features may not be available in your country, are not guaranteed to be available for any period of time, may be subject to suspension or withdrawal at any time"

 

[Archvillain]

the EULA. It gives Fdev the right to shadowban anyone whenever they want.

EULA helps but is subservient to local laws and I've heard a decent case made that shadow-banning a customer who purchased the game would technically breach eg. UK consumer-protection law no-matter what some EULA says. (I am neither a lawyer nor a UK lawyer, so not familiar with specifics or how much uncertainty there is)

 

[M00ka]

EULA helps but is subservient to local laws and I've heard a decent case made that shadow-banning a customer who purchased the game would technically breach eg. UK consumer-protection law no-matter what some EULA says. (I am neither a lawyer nor a UK lawyer, so not familiar with specifics or how much uncertainty there is)

So you really think a legal team would take on a case where the MOST someone can be awarded is what the current cost of the game? Wow, a team of high powered lawyers splitting a tenner …..

 

[IndigoWyrd]

Perhaps, but not entirely accurate - maybe not beyond ANY doubt, but it is certainly provable beyond "reasonable" doubt.

FD would need sufficient evidence to sufficiently indicate intent, not overwhelmingly prove it. The notional penalty for a breech of the EULA/CoC is a shadow ban which would not necessarily require FD to prove anything to anyone else regardless - they can action that on their side as I understand it.

Regardless, the point still stands that Combat Logging is a breech of the EULA/CoC and we are all bound by the stipulated terms.

Oh, make no mistake - I do not condone it. The problem is there is NO simple solution. It's a very complex issue, despite what all the resident experts here might think. What sound nice and neat, cut and dry, black and white really isn't so simple, or it would have been done a very long time ago. It would be great if the sideline programmers and closet developers would just stay on the sidelines or go back into their closets and leave the real work to the professionals and stop cluttering up the forums with their delusions of how simple an issue this is. No, they really don't need to keep droning on about it. Frontier is more than aware, and when the people who get paid to do things about it figure it out they'll do something about it.

EULA helps but is subservient to local laws and I've heard a decent case made that shadow-banning a customer who purchased the game would technically breach eg. UK consumer-protection law no-matter what some EULA says. (I am neither a lawyer nor a UK lawyer, so not familiar with specifics or how much uncertainty there is)

I'm not even going to step in this one. British laws, especially Consumer Laws are ridiculed world-wide, by even far more left-leaning peoples' on a daily basis. So far, the top of my list is: "Wanna hear the stupidest joke ever? British Consumer Law."

Mix that with, I'm in the States, and I don't have to care. I'll eat a Mute Swan mince pie every Christmas day, while laying on a quilt with the royal coat of arms on it, and get drunk while watching the cows. Come and get me. lol

 

[Archvillain]

So you really think a legal team would take on a case where the MOST someone can be awarded is what the current cost of the game? Wow, a team of high powered lawyers splitting a tenner …..

??? Not sure where that's coming from, where I grew up consumer protection doesn't work like that. You don't need lawyers, you just lodge a complaint with the office that enforces it, and then they enforce it for everyone, not just you. Costs you nothing. I assume the UK is similar; it wouldn't be much of a "consumer protection" law if regular consumers couldn't use it to protect themselves without first hiring a crack team of ace lawyers. :/

Anyway, point is that there may be more factors in play than just the EULA

 

[M00ka]

??? Not sure where that's coming from, where I grew up consumer protection doesn't work like that. You don't need lawyers, you just lodge a complaint with the office that enforces it on your behalf. Costs you nothing. I assume the UK is similar; it wouldn't be much of a "consumer protection" law if regular consumers couldn't use it to protect themselves without hiring a crack team of ace lawyers.

Oh it would be a court case, you are saying the EULA is null and void, FD are saying it isn't. Or do you think that any complaint is automatically upheld just because some random consumer didn't get their own way?

 

[Sup3rfluiD]

Even easier solution, just get rid of PvP entirely in the game. Most won't even know it's gone, and those that do notice probably won't mind either way. Just think on the saving of global power saved, no more stupid, repetitious Open Only dribble, no more complaining about CLOGing, no more complaining about gankers/griefers and seal clubers. Sure there would be some that would be upset, but the worst they could do is to come back as one of the forum undead - and most of the are totally irrelevant to any discussion. It would be utopia

Wow, what a completely selfish standpoint.
There are thousands of dedicated pvp enthusiasts who have nothing to do with clogging, ganking or griefing activities.
Get off your high horse, we paid for this game too.