A Simple Solution to Combat Logging

[M00ka]

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.

Nope, getting to like my view up here, I can see the horizon and everything

Did it occur to you I was being sarcastic? No surely not, of course I was putting forward to get rid of PvP, I want the game designed for me and me alone.

So, untrigger your trigger

 

[Archvillain]

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?

You are misunderstanding me. Firstly, I am not saying the EULA is null and void, I am saying that in some countries people have rights that a EULA cannot remove. Secondly, if the company wants to take a compliance order to court or other arbitration, that's fine; they're against government lawyers, the consumer doesn't go to court or need lawyers. In practice the companies generally don't want the costs and risks of court, they just accept the changes the office requires of them and put it behind them. Of course not all complaints are upheld, but it's often the case that companies prefer not to risk the scrutiny and so prefer not to take actions that would lead to complaints, even when they might be justified in doing so. An unchallenged EULA can be the stronger position.

 

[Bashy81]

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)

1) I think Fdev employed a lawyer in the drafting of their EULA, but if it has a game-breaking bug in it.... surprised?.. oops wrong thread.
2) Look at the legal description in the EULA. It separates the Game from the 'Online Services' which encompasses multiplayer features. These are positioned as optional extras that arent guaranteed to anyone at the outset, and can be removed from anyone at anytime for any reason. It is for this reason Xbox users can't extract menaces from Fdev for not being able to log in Open, when they dont have xbox live. (Paging Robert Manyard: Open is officially an Optional Extra)

 

[M00ka]

You are misunderstanding me. Firstly, I am not saying the EULA is null and void, I am saying that in some countries people have rights that a EULA cannot remove. Secondly, if the company wants to take it to court, that's fine; they're against government lawyers, the consumer doesn't go to court or need lawyers. In practice the companies generally don't want the costs and risks of court, they just accept the changes the office requires of them and put it behind them. Of course not all complaints are upheld, but it's often the case that companies prefer not to risk the scrutiny. An unchallenged EULA can be the stronger position.

No, I am not misunderstanding you, you are misunderstanding the entire situation. Lets walk through a scenario. Firstly, you are not in the UK (you did mention that some countries might not recognise the EULA). You do 'something' that FD considers a breach of the EULA, and take appropriate action, either a shadow ban, or an outright cancellation of your account. You go running to the local consumer advocate and complain. The consumer advocate looks at your case and says 'Sorry they are a UK company and outside of our jurisdiction, if you want action you need to initiate your own civil law case'. YOU LOSE.

Or for some reason, it does get to FD and they look at the case, cut a cheque for the cost of the game, give it to you and politely tell you that you are formally banned from owning any of their games again. YOU WIN BUT LOSE.

But you seem to be convinced you could win, so put it to the test, tell FD you consider the EULA unbinding and that they can't do anything to you - let us know how you go!

 

[Sup3rfluiD]

Nope, getting to like my view up here, I can see the horizon and everything

Did it occur to you I was being sarcastic? No surely not, of course I was putting forward to get rid of PvP, I want the game designed for me and me alone.

So, untrigger your trigger

My apologies, sarcasm never translates well in text. Sorry for the misinterpretation.

 

[M00ka]

My apologies, sarcasm never translates well in text. Sorry for the misinterpretation.

Apology accepted

 

[Archvillain]

No, I am not misunderstanding you, you are misunderstanding the entire situation.

I'm sorry but what you're saying is absolutely missing what I'm trying to say. Now you seem to be suggesting that consumer protection law in one country has no jurisdiction over sellers of products being sold there if they're made by a company elsewhere. If that's what you mean, that's not how jurisdiction works. To sell in a market, your products in that market must comply with the laws of that market or you lose that market. I can assure you there exist countries where consumers do not need lawyers or money to have international sellers examined and, if in violation, forced to comply with law or lose the ability to sell to that market.

this is getting wild. You are acting like I'm your adversary here, but I'm not trying to shut you down or defend combat logging. I'm giving a explanation of an additional reason why Fdev might be keeping it's EULA powder so dry. I've followed a lot of legal battles over software in various countries and think it's fairly uncontroversial that a EULA doesn't trump all laws everywhere. It's fair that I needed to elaborate that consumers in some places don't need lawyers to prompt enforcement scrutiny, but I don't understand the hostility to that fact. I don't know why I'm getting pushback.

Many companies adopt the strategy that it's better to have a strong EULA and try to keep it legally unchallenged. It would not surprise me at all if this included Fdev, because it's a good strategy.

 

[lenna]

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.

That is exactly where my notoriety-like points system suggestion was coming from, occasional rare incidents on the part of a specific individual would perhaps indicate a minor issue not worth investigating further while a consistently higher number of points might indicate a bigger concern.

Ultimately, if people actually use the reporting tools to report combat logging incidents then FD should already have the necessary metrics.

 

[Stigbob]

Block anyone who clogs on you. Problem solved in its entirety in the simplest possible way using the tools FDEV had the foresight to give us already.

No fictitious lawyers, human intervention or time and effort for anyone necessary.

 

[lenna]

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

Irrelevant to the point being discussed - we are not talking about how the game handles combat logging incidents, in software terms the system (game+server facilities) seems to be robust enough in that regard.

What we are talking about is deliberate behaviour on the part of an individual in the context of an interactive multiplayer environment (i.e. ED), and the policing of that behaviour by the multiplayer environment owners (i.e. FD). What behaviours that individual are permitted to engage in are constrained by the EULA and Code of Conduct but in this specific discussion we are talking about Combat Logging which is defined as a form of cheating in essence by FD.

I am also under the impression that part of the Sony/Microsoft online subscription services there are similar provisions (Terms of Service is likely) that include comparable prohibitions on cheating and the like.

 

[lenna]

Block anyone who clogs on you. Problem solved in its entirety in the simplest possible way using the tools FDEV had the foresight to give us already.

They also have the option in the same set of tools to report players for apparent misconduct as well.

The arguments like these seem to be fuelled by PvPers who do not use these tools for whatever reason.

 

[Stinja]

Block anyone who clogs on you. Problem solved in its entirety in the simplest possible way using the tools FDEV had the foresight to give us already.

Only if blocking stops instancing (rumoured not to work on consoles).

And likewise any shieldless traders in Open, block "griefers", and solved repeat events.

Can we close this thread now?

 

[Stigbob]

Only if blocking stops instancing (rumoured not to work on consoles).

And likewise any shieldless traders in Open, block "griefers", and solved repeat events.

Can we close this thread now?

Blocking stops instancing, I think you can block other players on consoles outside the game from what console players have said about it.

 

[IndigoWyrd]

Blocking stops instancing, I think you can block other players on consoles outside the game from what console players have said about it.

It's been a while, but last I knew, blocking was not a 100% be-all-end-all never-see-you-again solution. While it does tremendously reduce the likelihood of encountering a blocked player, there instances and situations where you can still wind up instanced with a blocked player such as:

When that blocked player is part of a wing, and other players in that wing are not blocked, or one or more of the players in that wing are Friends listed.
When the blocked player is the only other player available.

I recall there being an entire paragraph on the subject, and it was as convoluted as most things Elite, but in the end, it boiled down to basically saying "Blocking someone mostly works, but isn't 100%."

This may have changed since then, I dunno. To date only two people have ever made it to my blocked list, as well as having their IP range added to my router's blacklist - sorry for anyone else in that range if they're dynamic, we won't be crossing paths. I also blacklist IP ranges from certain countries too - sorry Lil' Fattie, your nation is one of them, along with most of the middle east, all of Somalia and Myanmar.

 

[lenna]

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.

The simple answer is what we already have - generic report and block tools.

Any other claimed "simple" answer is merely overly punitive rubbish - at least in the context of the automated policing some seem to be pushing for.

 

[Stigbob]

It's been a while, but last I knew, blocking was not a 100% be-all-end-all never-see-you-again solution. While it does tremendously reduce the likelihood of encountering a blocked player, there instances and situations where you can still wind up instanced with a blocked player such as:

When that blocked player is part of a wing, and other players in that wing are not blocked, or one or more of the players in that wing are Friends listed.
When the blocked player is the only other player available.

I recall there being an entire paragraph on the subject, and it was as convoluted as most things Elite, but in the end, it boiled down to basically saying "Blocking someone mostly works, but isn't 100%."

This may have changed since then, I dunno. To date only two people have ever made it to my blocked list, as well as having their IP range added to my router's blacklist - sorry for anyone else in that range if they're dynamic, we won't be crossing paths. I also blacklist IP ranges from certain countries too - sorry Lil' Fattie, your nation is one of them, along with most of the middle east, all of Somalia and Myanmar.

Block was originally comms only at release, then it reduced your instancing but not theirs with the friends list taking priority, now it just blocks all instancing and you can do it from the main menu to people you've never even met in the game (which even I as a long time advocate of blocking undesirables think is OP and abusable). Its been slowly beefed up over the years to the point where now its actually far more effective than the original pre-release plan for it which was like the second stage I just described.

I don't think they originally anticipated just how crazy some people can get over video games and had to give it teeth due to the behaviour of the proper nutters. I wouldn't be surprised if fool proof blocking mechanics becomes mandatory for online gaming in the next few years.

 

[IndigoWyrd]

Block was originally comms only at release, then it reduced your instancing but not theirs with the friends list taking priority, now it just blocks all instancing and you can do it from the main menu to people you've never even met in the game (which even I as a long time advocate of blocking undesirables think is OP and abusable). Its been slowly beefed up over the years to the point where now its actually far more effective than the original pre-release plan for it which was like the second stage I just described.

I don't think they originally anticipated just how crazy some people can get over video games and had to give it teeth due to the behaviour of the proper nutters. I wouldn't be surprised if fool proof blocking mechanics becomes mandatory for online gaming in the next few years.

Knowing British Consumer Law, you can count on it.

 

[IndigoWyrd]

Block was originally comms only at release, then it reduced your instancing but not theirs with the friends list taking priority, now it just blocks all instancing and you can do it from the main menu to people you've never even met in the game (which even I as a long time advocate of blocking undesirables think is OP and abusable). Its been slowly beefed up over the years to the point where now its actually far more effective than the original pre-release plan for it which was like the second stage I just described.

I don't think they originally anticipated just how crazy some people can get over video games and had to give it teeth due to the behaviour of the proper nutters. I wouldn't be surprised if fool proof blocking mechanics becomes mandatory for online gaming in the next few years.

Who's the bigger nutter, the nutter who combat logs, or the nutter that looses his shyte and posts thousands of posts about how much hurt there is in his buttocks because of it?

 

[Good Whiskey]

Disclaimer: I love this game.

To be fair, I have never played an online game, or an online mode within a game, where combat is ostensibly possible anywhere and everywhere... that is this soft.

I mentioned in the Suggestions thread that I do not mean that as an insult. At all. To this game or to anyone who plays it. But how this is even an issue here doesn't make sense to me. When you dive into the ocean, you're swimming with predators. Combat logging, timers, mode switching... it's weird. There is a remarkable amount of risk aversion here. This is strictly an objective assessment, not scorn.

 

[Bashy81]

Knowing British Consumer Law, you can count on it.

What is your beef with british consumer law? Are you a salty purveyor of finest chlorinated chicken or somethin?

Who's the bigger nutter, the nutter who combat logs, or the nutter that looses his shyte and posts thousands of posts about how much hurt there is in his buttocks because of it?

thousands of posts? On their own? Yeah I hate it when that happens all the time. I miss the old Indigo who at least put some effort into trolling. This is just anaemic